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]
I would not disagree that the physical act of playing BW perfectly as far as mechanically is harder than playing SC2 perfectly(even though it hasn't happened yet)
but I Think that in the end it will be the things that don't transfer i.e. the strategic choices, Build orders and game knowledge that is unique to the game that will determine how skilled you are and thus how exciting the game will be. but within a short year these things haven't had time to be used to their full potential, while BW is maybe at 99%(I'm sure there is SOMETHING that has gone unfigured out even after all these years, even chess has anomalies still and it is far older than either BW or SC2)
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]
I would not disagree that the physical act of playing BW perfectly as far as mechanically is harder than playing SC2 perfectly(even though it hasn't happened yet)
but I Think that in the end it will be the things that don't transfer i.e. the strategic choices, Build orders and game knowledge that is unique to the game that will determine how skilled you are and thus how exciting the game will be. but within a short year these things have had time to be used to their full potential, while BW is maybe at 99%(I'm sure there is SOMETHING that has gone unfigured out even after all these years, even chess has anomalies still and it is far older than either BW or SC2)
What makes you believe SC2 is fully figured out while you're so sure that BW isn't? It's not like there haven't been recent metagame shifts in SC2, the players are still coming up with new things.
Edit: Ah ok, it was just a typo, we are in agreement then!
Can somebody give me the answer why the Koreans keep getting a bigger advantage every month over the foreigners? Can somebody tell me when this will stop?
I don't know shit about BW but I heard that there was a Protoss player in the early OSL days that was capable to win against Koreans. BW was 2 years old then.
We are now 1 year far and Koreans have made it to the Ro8 in every NASL tournament/Qualifier. At Dreamhack we had HuK to beat 4 of them. But guess with who he has been training? Who won MLG?
I don't want to know how far Koreans will be ahead in 1 year time. But then you will probably start some more imbalance threads instead if this garbage.
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]
I would not disagree that the physical act of playing BW perfectly as far as mechanically is harder than playing SC2 perfectly(even though it hasn't happened yet)
but I Think that in the end it will be the things that don't transfer i.e. the strategic choices, Build orders and game knowledge that is unique to the game that will determine how skilled you are and thus how exciting the game will be. but within a short year these things have had time to be used to their full potential, while BW is maybe at 99%(I'm sure there is SOMETHING that has gone unfigured out even after all these years, even chess has anomalies still and it is far older than either BW or SC2)
What makes you believe SC2 is fully figured out while you're so sure that BW isn't? It's not like there haven't been recent metagame shifts in SC2, the players are still coming up with new things.
it was a typo... it was supposed to read these things haven't had time to develop
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.
Macro is everything in Starcraft at the B- level or less. If a MC of Starcraft 1, so lets say Jaedong played someone like the Destiny of Starcraft 1, he could practically 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a all his units after the 5 minute mark and win with pure macro.
Pretty much in Starcraft 2 terms, you shouldnt even touch micro until you reach masters, and focus on having constant production and executing a proper build order.
A higher macro skill cap seperates the great players from the good players, while in SC2 many mid masters can macro like White-ra for the first 10 minutes of the game easily. I mean looking at APM there are pros that get by with 100-120 like Sjow, White-ra, Goody... While if you look at BW korean pros they all play with 250+ because its not physically possible to be sucessful with less. Althought high BW APM isnt at amazing because most of it is robotic reflexisive actioon as opposed to the more thinking involved SC2 apm.
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote: And what if this has nothing to do with the players at all, but the game itself that has changed the nature of the competition? Note that before you claim the competition in StarCraft2 is already just as good, watch a few Brood War replays. If I agreed with anything in The Elephant in the Room, it was that Brood War has higher quality game play. It just does. Watch them play. There, now that we dispelled that myth, let me elaborate on my point.
you have to define in your opinion what is the quality of game play, without it you can't just say "watch them play, there I proved my point and dispelled that myth"
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote: As far as I understand everything, in Brood War, the "strategy" part of the game was a secondary concern. Mechanics are the driving force behind skill development for everyone up to the very top players. You didn't worry about strategy until you had incredibly solid mechanics and could actually play the game at a fast pace. Due to the enormous physical and mental output needed to sustain constant production and resource management, it was a skill to just keep constant production. Only the best pro players could think and react and develop a strategy and keep their macro and micro going. It was just too hard for everyone else.
Again how is mechanics relating to the quality of game play? are you saying mechanics is the quality of game play? Did you see any of Idra's games vs F91? What quality are you speaking off? Idra sucked so bad vs F91 who just free style and queue up 5k mineral and 3k gas constantly, and idra who had the perfect macro got flat out raped by F91's inferior mechanic.
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote: To put it another way, there is an almost-unattainably high skill ceiling in Brood War, and that ceiling spans multiple dimensions of game play. You want to be better at macro? Practice keeping constant worker production and always send them to mine right as they come out (and building structures and checking that they are all making units and expoing and so on). You want to be better at micro? Practice keeping those dragoons from running in a single file zigzag toward the enemy (and drop harassing and burrowing lurkers and so on). Everything required lots of clicking and button pressing.
You didn't put this another way, on the paragraph above you already said it was hard to get good at bw mechanics. You have to realize that in Korea all the B teamers have good mechanics, idra was a B teamer, they dont' get air time on TV not because they don't work hard, they simply just not improving faster than those that were already ahead of them. and of course the "improving" i'm speaking of is their crisis management and strategy. because everybody at that level have good mechanics.
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote: But what Blizzard has done with StarCraft2 was they pulled that ceiling down a little. Need another worker? Press two hotkeys and wait. The game will do the rest. Automatically sent to mine. Heck, you can change which hotkeys you have to press to get the worker out. You can put them right next to each other (instead of the pre-defined locations of BW that are all over the keyboard). Want to build out of all your buildings? Just control+click on and hold down a key. Now you're macroing gosu-style.
At this point i am starting to wonder if you really mean mechanics = higher quality of game play. since you didn't define what is the quality of game play you are speaking of, I have to assume you mean the hard earn mechanics of bw is at least a large part of what you consider to be quality game play. Now again, let me point you to Idra vs F91, ask yourself, why idra lose to such inferior player? the strategy F91 demonstrated is brilliant, and can only be understood by ppl who puts themselves on F91's place, and try to think like him. If you didn't see that series, please go watch it at And if you are not sure what had happened during the games, please let our very own rekrul enlighten you with his wisdom, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=88342
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote: While it's great for normal people and certainly makes average games more entertaining, at the very highest levels, it creates a logjam of talent. Players who used to struggle to keep up their macro and couldn't spot drops while rallying units and checking upgrades and scouting expansions? Well, now they can do that. SC2 all players a bunch of free time. The game took some of the heavy lifting off players' shoulders.
Ok you have a little misconception of what mechanics are. Let me give you an example of comparison, Terran in BW that operates 6 rax compare to terran in sc2 operating 6 rax. The unit production cycle looks something like this. In sc1, player's eye constantly paying attention to the minimap, sees the notification on the minimap signaling a round of marines just came out, F3, click m, click m, click m, click m, click m, click m. In sc2, the player constantly paying attention to the minimap, sees the notification on the minimap signaling a round of marines just pop, he goes 5aaaaaa. Your misconception lies in thinking "F3, click m, click m, click m, click m, click m, click m" is a lot harder to do than "5aaaaaa" NO NO NO, the difficult part is develop that ability to constantly pay attention to the minimap, the difficult part is the player's constant focus on multiple things in the same time. The difference between 13 actions and 7 actions to operate 7 rax is nothing compare to the ability to focus on multiple tasks in the same time during a 30minute long game.
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote: Sure, better players have an small edge, but in Brood War, that edge was a cliff and the great ones could drop opponent after opponent off it.
What is the edge you are speaking of? How is one player better than another? People who are on top of sc2 skill right now are players who can't compete with the best in bw, is that much of a mystery that they have a hard time separating themselves from each other? Remember they all improve, its just that flash bisu and jaedong improves faster than the ones who are playing sc2, the boxer of today will own the shit out of the boxer who were 2002. What i'm trying to say here is that this Edge difference between sc2 and bw is due to the players not the game. July, nada, MC, fruitdealer they are all talented, Jaedong, biisu, flash and stork are just much more talented then them. If you get flash bisu jaedong to play sc2 and they aren't dominating like they did in bw then maybe you have a case. However, base on the current observable facts people who are good at bw are now on top of sc2 in terms of skills.
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote: Want proof? I can't offer that, but there is one barometer that suggests the skill ceiling is at work: the foreign scene. How many BW players came from outside of Korea to play and win in Korea? It wasn't a whole lot. But now? Koreans and foreigners are playing each other constantly and foreigners are winning games from even the current top Korean players. Sure, Koreans are still winning more, but the gap has narrowed. Magically. In a year. 12 years of BW and the foreign scene can't touch Korea, but in 1 year SC2 has a robust competitive group of foreigners? Maybe it's the lack of BW Koreans making the switch, but maybe not.
Proof? your interpretation of the proof is wrong. Because you didn't consider the whole truth and only pick part of it that fits your argument.
Allow me to rebut, first point, It is true that there were only one foreigner who won an OSL and that was in the very very early years of BW's raise, the player was X'ds~grrrr... and he didn't just win that one OSl, he dominated for an entire year, he was so good that he went to the OSL final drunk on 6 shots of whiskey and played random and lost both games till he played for real and bitch slap that silly Korean for a 3-2 victory. That was BW, we don't see any foreigner dominating sc2 like grrrr.. did in the first year. 2nd point, during BW days the very best foreigners are almost an even match vs the korean B-teamers, remember what I said about bw skills? no one stays the same, everybody is constantly improving, this means the foreigners are improving about as fast as the Korean B-teamers, and now think about who are on top of SC2 in tournament results in GSL, yes in terms of their BW skill when they make the switch they are all the former B-teamers and MVP the sole A teamers from BW, Huk took out MC and moon, MC was B-teamer, and Moon doesn't even play bw. The foreigners can already take games from the B-teamers during the BW days, Idra was rumor to have a solid record on his CJ B-team ranking leagues. How can you call this proof when you ignoring the fact that majority of the BW talents hasn't switched to SC2?
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote: I think everyone should stop pretending that BW is anything like SC2. It's not good for either game. Being a BW pro is a gradual ascent; you get better and better and better until finally you sit on top of the ESPORTS mountain. The SC2 learning curve is not as steep or long; it's much more like king-of-the-hill. I think that the community should embrace SC2 for the ups and downs, the constant changing of leaders, the up-and-comers winning. I don't think SC2 will be anything like BW, where the "bonjwas" of the game took turns controlling the scene before passing the torch to the next juggernaut. SC2 isn't designed to have unstoppable force-of-nature players. It was designed to update the times, to bring everyone closer together and let the underdog have a real shot at toppling the better player.
You are the one pretending, you don't know how mechanics work, both bw and sc2 operates on the same mechanics, let me help you out here, more click or less click, easier or harder interface, YOU STILL HAVE TO REMEMBER TO BUILD SHITS WITH YOUR BRAIN, before you can execute with whichever interface, because after the remembering part is done and over with, the excution part is mere a difference between 13 actions of bw and 7 action of sc2 in my previous example of 6 rax pumping marines. The remembering part is the essences of mechanics.
I do not see players play flawlessly yet, so I think it's too early to say.
I don't see players react instantly and correctly to new information. Never throw away units. Get good position, flanking, micro optimally with target firing and spells (in particular: colossi still target buildings in battles in the GSL too often).
I still see players queue up several units.
The Puma vs MC series in the NASL was actually the best series I can remember seeing so far - because both played really well. Not just one player. And there were a lot of long games. Still was mistakes done in those games.
I would say ... looking back 6 months, 'players were so bad' ... and in 6 months, we'll say the same about right now.
I think the constantly evolving meta game and styles so far proves the game isn't figured out yet.
... and I do, honestly and sincerely, believe that if Jaedong or Flash (uninjured) were to switch, they would completely dominate after 3 months.
You state that the foreigner scene and the korean scene are closer, which is true to a point. Foreigners are much more competative however look at the results of recent tournaments. The only players to take BoX series from Koreans at live lan events(Not including NASL and most recent GSL because i haven't seen all of it yet) are Idra(2-0 over MC) HuK (3-2 over Moon plus some Homestory stuff) Naniwa(2-1 MC Homestory cup) So while the foreign community has caught up to a point they are not consistently taking series off of Korean scene yet.
Am I convinced this position is necessary true? No, not entirely. StarCraft2 could, in fact, be more strategically complex since players have more free energy to expend on tactics and thinking about the game while it's happening. But I absolutely think that SC2 cannot be great in the same way BW is.
The OP is complete and utter garbage. You also forgot to add on that SC2 will not be "BW great" because they are different games, therefore SC2 will be "SC2 great".
You also sound like someone that doesn't watch much SC2 and are doing a terrible job of hiding your BW elitism. No GSL Champion has fallen to Code B. MVP, fell to Code A, stomped right back into the Code A finals where he lost to bomber (who is no slouch), and is once again Code S. Nestea, FD and MC have only gone to up and down matches but are still Code S and I don't believe Polt was technically ever in Code A as he won a wildcard to get back into Code S. However, I also don't believe that all the stragglers have been weeded out of Code S yet.
For SC2 pros it doesn't matter as much because so many more people will be able to mechanically play at the highest level.
There are only a handful of foreign pros that are able to take games off of the top Koreans. Aside from Naniwa, Thorzain, Sen, Huk, and Idra, there aren't a whole lot of other pros that the majority of people would expect to have a chance of winning a series against the top Koreans. As a matter of fact, it could even be because so many foreign pros think/thought the way you do that they slack on practice since "so many more people will be able to mechanically play at the highest level".
Finally, i don't think that many people are pretending that BW is anything like SC2. Automine, infinite number control groups, auto cast, no lurkers =(, THE COLOSSUS. We know it's different. If anything the only things the SC2 crowd draws from BW are the speculations and desires of S class pros coming to SC2 and the waiting to name our first bonjwa.
Your article would've been great had you come out with it last year. Or even earlier this year. But right now, not so much.
On July 13 2011 16:15 JoeSchmoe wrote: 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.
Q. Many people consider TvT a matchup very similar to SC1, what are your thoughts on this? No, I think it is much harder. With the added units like Banshees and Marauders, it is hard to find the right balance of units. In SCBW, it was a positional game like Go (the black and white board game), involving positional and mental battles, but in SC2 there is the added dimension of unit composition. I think that TvT, especially in SC2 is both dynamic and fun. Haha.
On July 13 2011 14:18 425kid wrote: You're right obviously about the macro. I disagree about the micro though. MKP and Polt and MC have proved that insane micro can overcome bo losses. Mkp most notably with the hold against an unscouted proxy 2 gate in his base, or his marine splits against kyrix. But he and polt also do subtle things like targeting collosi with a small groups of marauders mid battle. Polt also with that dropship micro on dual sight where he lifted two full dropships over forcefields against blink stalkers. MC anytime he has sentries.
Macro limits out really quickly, but I think the micro ceiling is really high.
Agreed. I've been trying to convince people of this for months.
The game continues to evolve before our eyes, and yet there are still so many people waving their hands and dismissing the progress that has taken place in just 1 year.
if it requires different facets of the same skills in differing amounts that does not in any way mean that you can have players who wont be as dominating as a Flash. They just need to be better in other ways. This brood war elitism is just dumb. SC2 has only been around a year and you expect people to be just as good at it as people are at a different game that has been here for a decade or more? Chill. Get out!
Sure, Koreans are still winning more, but the gap has narrowed. Magically. In a year. 12 years of BW and the foreign scene can't touch Korea, but in 1 year SC2 has a robust competitive group of foreigners?
In the 12 years of broodwar the skill gap widened between foreigners and koreans more and more to me it sounds like your saying "foreigners had 12 years to catch up and they couldnt" wich i guess is a true statement but the fact is they didnt have the training for it and couldnt match the skills without the team house environment. In the first years of broodwar there wasnt a huge skill gap immediately but also broodwar wasnt nearly as popular in terms of a foreign progaming scene meaning a far smaller player pool(as far as i know). This is an entirely new game and we still do see some of the best BW players that have switched over up at the top (nada is ridiculously consistent and he was past his prime when he quit broodwar) but its still a new game and i guarantee you aside from a few foreigners seeking korean training (or if the foreign pro scen fundamentally shifts to allow for teams to all live together under 1 roof and practice 12 hours a day) as the years go by we will see the gap widen much much further.
I beleive there is still alot of room for mechanics it is just put into a different place i guess its a mixture of strategy and mechanics. I mean as players get better hypothetically if sc2 is so much easier mechanically for macro we could see players dropping 5 different places at once while controlling their units or microing three different battles at once as they attempt to spread out their opponents starcraft 2 feels much less limiting in that sense as not as much effort needs to be expended on macro so the opportunity for even more stunning micro feats becomes a possibility.
Thats just my take on it the game is still fairly new and i think the only reason we are seeing such instability amongst top pro's is because the game hasnt been fully figured out yet and expansions such as HOTS could change everything adding more units means potentially more chances for harass and new mechanics. Who knows what they will add.
On July 13 2011 16:40 Koshi wrote: Can somebody give me the answer why the Koreans keep getting a bigger advantage every month over the foreigners? Can somebody tell me when this will stop?
I don't know shit about BW but I heard that there was a Protoss player in the early OSL days that was capable to win against Koreans. BW was 2 years old then.
We are now 1 year far and Koreans have made it to the Ro8 in every NASL tournament/Qualifier. At Dreamhack we had HuK to beat 4 of them. But guess with who he has been training? Who won MLG?
I don't want to know how far Koreans will be ahead in 1 year time. But then you will probably start some more imbalance threads instead if this garbage.
Differences in the amount of training (My estimates): Koreans: 8-12 hours a day, 5-6 days a week Foreigners: 3-6 hours a day, 4-5 days a week
There are some foreigners who train more and some koreans who train less, but there is still a large gap. If foreigners would train 10 hours a day 6 days a week, they could keep up with koreans (example: Huk, trains like a korean, plays like a korean), but many don't.
Anyways, on topic:
The games are different, but SC2 is in no way figured out or even close to it. SC2 requires a lot more effort into strategy and thinking, BW more in Mechanics (you still require thinking, but the amount of thinking you can do is limited by what capacity the mechanical requirements block).
Players take games of better players because they have innovative strategies. This makes them win a few games and then they disappear into obscurity when their strategies get figured out. They rise again when they have a new strategy, but the more the game gets figured out, the more ahead the pros get and the less "new" strategies appear, the less volatile the games will be.
On July 13 2011 14:58 XXGeneration wrote: A lower skill ceiling means that more people will be closer to the top in terms of skill.
When I watch BW, and see Flash and Jaedong do things elegantly, like Dark Swarms or Medic Marine micro against lurkers, I think to myself, "Wow, they really are pros. I can't even dream of doing that as well as them. Better go practice for it."
When I watch SC2, and see MC throw down storms, I just think "Eh, well it's autocasted. I can probably do that." Marine vs Baneling is probably the one of the only intricate unit relationships in SC2 that requires micro from both ends to maximize cost efficiency.
The "mundane tasks" such as making units well and sending units to mine may seem extraneous, but in reality they help separate the good players from the great players. Perhaps it's my inner Asian speaking, but I feel that hard work should be rewarded in a game, especially one as great as Starcraft.
Without these petty tasks such as sending workers to mine, anyone can be good without actually spending effort. Would it be fair for a person who spends 2 hours a day playing SC2 to win over a progamer like Huk who spends his entire day?
Autocast Storms? That doesn't exist, and even if it did, you probably couldn't do it.
On July 13 2011 16:15 JoeSchmoe wrote: 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.
Q. Many people consider TvT a matchup very similar to SC1, what are your thoughts on this? No, I think it is much harder. With the added units like Banshees and Marauders, it is hard to find the right balance of units. In SCBW, it was a positional game like Go (the black and white board game), involving positional and mental battles, but in SC2 there is the added dimension of unit composition. I think that TvT, especially in SC2 is both dynamic and fun. Haha.
To be fair, he also says this:
Q. What are your thoughts between SC1 and SC2 In SC2, the graphics are very nice and the overall mechanics of the game is easier so it’s easier to play, but because of that, each battle and strategy becomes more important. For example, many units in one control group tends to bunch up so you have to be careful to spread them in battle. As for strategy, there are many that just simply end the game if you are not prepared, so you have to be extremely careful, especially in the beginning of the game. What people say about early game scouting being difficult is true. However, through my vast experience, I have to predict by feel what my opponent’s strategy will be.
That also supports the OP's idea of "mechanically easier, so strategy becomes more important".
On July 13 2011 14:58 XXGeneration wrote: A lower skill ceiling means that more people will be closer to the top in terms of skill.
When I watch BW, and see Flash and Jaedong do things elegantly, like Dark Swarms or Medic Marine micro against lurkers, I think to myself, "Wow, they really are pros. I can't even dream of doing that as well as them. Better go practice for it."
When I watch SC2, and see MC throw down storms, I just think "Eh, well it's autocasted. I can probably do that." Marine vs Baneling is probably the one of the only intricate unit relationships in SC2 that requires micro from both ends to maximize cost efficiency.
The "mundane tasks" such as making units well and sending units to mine may seem extraneous, but in reality they help separate the good players from the great players. Perhaps it's my inner Asian speaking, but I feel that hard work should be rewarded in a game, especially one as great as Starcraft.
Without these petty tasks such as sending workers to mine, anyone can be good without actually spending effort. Would it be fair for a person who spends 2 hours a day playing SC2 to win over a progamer like Huk who spends his entire day?
Autocast Storms? That doesn't exist, and even if it did, you probably couldn't do it.
I would assume he meant smartcast. And it's true, to a point. It is EASIER to blanket an area in storms, but not necessarily EASY (depending on how many other things are going on at the time).
On July 13 2011 16:52 rei wrote: You are the one pretending, you don't know how mechanics work, both bw and sc2 operates on the same mechanics, let me help you out here, more click or less click, easier or harder interface, YOU STILL HAVE TO REMEMBER TO BUILD SHITS WITH YOUR BRAIN, before you can execute with whichever interface, because after the remembering part is done and over with, the excution part is mere a difference between 13 actions of bw and 7 action of sc2 in my previous example of 6 rax pumping marines. The remembering part is the essences of mechanics.
First of all, 13 actions vs 7 is a tremendous difference and it's not even 7 because you can just hold down a key for 2 seconds and have 20 marines in production from 10 barracks (not the exact numbers but you get the point). That is APM you can be investing towards other aspects of gameplay. Also the mechanics between SC2 and BW does not simply boil down to remembering when to macro. Sure knowing when to macro avoid to avoid unnecessary queues is crucial but the biggest difference is the context switch that is forced in BW macro, especially late game. you need to be looking at your production facilities to select them and produce units which obviously diverts your focus from army control which obviously challenges your multitasking. In SC2, I don't even have to take attention off my army in the middle of battle. It's simple enough to just select 5 and hold down 'a' to produce another round of marines.
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 automine, 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.
So much in this post is wrong or just weird. If you don't think SC2 is good then don't, i really don't understand how you can blame that on people that like the game and talk good about it.
Idra couldn't compete against Jaedong/Flash but can compete against most players in SC2. Maybe that's cause no A-grade BW champion has switched? And the fact that we've only recently seen what players are consistently placing high in tournaments. Idras level isn't alot lower than the B-grade BW players that switched over and it's not really that suprising that he can hold his own against them (not recently though, lost to MC badly in both HSC and MLG).
I for one have no interest in watching a step back to BW with mechanical stuff that adds nothing to the actual game. I'd rather see more interesting unit abilities and more opportunities for micro to turn a battle instead of tedious repetitive tasks added to the game.
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote: I think everyone should stop pretending that BW is anything like SC2.
I think using this principle as a base for any argument will inevitably lead into flawed and generally weak arguments.
There is zero basis to claim that Brood War is "completely different" to SC2. Completely different relative to what? Some other game? Unlikely. Some subjective concept of what is similar enough to be called similar? Probably, but that is ultimately irrelevant. They're as similar as two different games could realistically be without being a clone of each other - and the skills and requirements to compete at a top level carry over almost completely.
The other base principle I disagree with is that SC2 is somehow a less mechanical game and that it puts a greater emphasis on strategy and being clever. Mechanics and execution are increasingly gaining more "value" in SC2 and will continue to do so as strategies become close-to-optimal and begin to fall into the standardized metagame.
Ultimately, in almost any RTS game strategy will get "solved" (not entirely, but to a huge degree) before mechanical skill peaks (which can't even happen in reality). Mechanics will always win out in the end and be the key difference between the 2 players.
EPT
