|
How come Flash doesn't win every single game if he is the best player to ever play BW and the game is so perfect that the better player always wins?
How can Nestea have the same winrate (~70%) as Flash against pro-gamers and finish top 8 in like every gsl if the game is so random?
Stop acting like macro is the only thing that defines the skill-ceiling in a rts-game. There is basically no macro in warcraft 3, still the same players kept winning tournaments over and over again because they perfected other skillsets like strategy, micro, positioning and decision-making. As long as people play this game (for money), they will find a way to get better than their opponent.
I mean we saw MMA microing like 3 drops at the same time, you will always get to a point were it is humanly impossible to do everything perfectly in game (like macro, and attack, and drop 2 locations at the same time), so the player with the better multitasking and decision-making will be superior. I think the "skill-ceiling" in sc2 is a myth...
|
I like this article. agree mostly. BW was hard because of all the wrong reasons such as poor interface. I'm glad SC2 is better
|
On July 13 2011 17:34 Awesomeness wrote:
How come Flash doesn't win every single game if he is the best player to ever play BW and the game is so perfect that the better player always wins?
How can Nestea have the same winrate (~70%) as Flash against pro-gamers and finish top 8 in like every gsl if the game is so random?
This is a good point. Everyone seems to have unreal expectations of what a top player is capable of.
|
I think it's a good and true article, but I think it will be made untrue. Not even the best players in the world, playing their best games, play perfectly at all. There's no pro player who can't improve a ton, even only half-decent players can find things to critique. Eventually, the ones who train the most will get the consistency to stop making mistakes and refine their play, and we'll get the consistency seen in BW where a player just won't give his opponent a chance to win.
|
The difference between SC1 and SC2 is that you needed like 250 eapm to keep up with macro mechanics and to play professionally. The strategy, tactics, and game sense go hand in hand with good mechanics. Because of this, BW had a higher skill entry level to become a good player. SC2 is sort of the same, except it doesn't require much apm to attain good macro.
It's impossible to measure how much strategy is involved both games, but SC2 sure as hell doesn't require more "tactics" and whatnot than BW just because it's a lower apm game. Considering SC2 is not even fully balanced and Blizzard will continue to fuck it up or fix it in the next two expansions, it's hard to see where SC2 will stand in the future.
|
Most people forget SC and then BW didn't have millions of people playing online the day they were released. Skill levels were different because not everyone could play the best players all the time, everyone has the same opportunities now so it makes sense the top level players skill level is closer together. Fact is it's slowly widening. Korean trained players are starting to dominate, Dreamhack..NASL, MLG... and still the best players make lots of mistakes, lots of things haven't been figured out.
People talk about the skill ceiling being low?
Name me one player who has hit that ceiling, you can't because no one has. The skill level keeps going up. watch GSL 1-3 and then watch some of the recent games.. the skill level has jumped. and will continue to grow. Everyone who ever complains about the skill ceiling needs to answer this.. then why haven't we seen you winning Major tournaments?
|
Intrigue argued that poor quality of players was responsible for the revolving door that is GSL Champion. But I think the reason GSL champs keep rotating (and why players go from the top of Code S on out to Code B and back up again) is the lower skill ceiling. It turns the outcomes into more a dice roll.
I see your point but the part about tournament results is wrong I think. If you look at the games from MVP when he dropped down to code A he was just playing plain bad. Jinro isn't getting top8/top4 anymore not because of the game but because he is just playing bad at the moment.
Another thing is that there are way more tournaments now than in BW (I think). Besides the monthly GSL and GSTL there's MLG, Dreamhack, NASL, IEM etc. etc. This makes it harder to dominate everything but I think there was a post a while back comparing winrate % and players like MC and Nestea are still really high (~70%), so this kind-off disproves your point about the randomness.
|
Would chess be better if the game pieces were heavier?
Would the tour de france be better if the bikers had to juggle?
Would boxing be better if their feet were tied up?
Just because something is more difficult does not mean it is better.
|
On July 13 2011 17:37 setmeal wrote:
I like this article. agree mostly. BW was hard because of all the wrong reasons such as poor interface. I'm glad SC2 is better
Well if that's your complaint, Starcraft 2 has poor interface as well.
- You can't see your production and research timings while in the game. You have to mentally memorize when the things complete and a really simple interface feature would "fix" this.
- Units in SC2 all clump in a ball and then get destroyed by forcefields and AOE. Why isn't there a "formations" button where you can force them to move in the formation of your choice?
- You can't queue researches which is really annoying when you want to get to +2s or +3s as soon as possible. You have to remember to start it yourself! And yeah I know queuing is supposed to be bad, but it's a cool interface option that helps the user.
- The game only warns you about being supply blocked when you're already supply blocked. Wouldn't it be so much better if it warned you at 2 or 4 food below current supply cap? In fact, make it X food below supply cap where you can set X yourself in the game options.
- Why don't those Queens just autoinject the stupid larva? They're standing next to the Hatchery all the time anyway, but the game forces the player to move away from what they're doing just to inject larva. Similarly, why can't you just set the building you want to Chronoboost and it does it on its own?
- Why can't you edit the SC2 interface in the same way you can edit WoWs to get all the extra information you want in the most convenient layout?
All of these and many more make Starcraft 2 harder for what you say are "all the wrong reasons". I can come up with many more "improvements" to Starcraft 2 interface, and every single one would make the game worse, not better.
However, what most people don't understand about a GAME interface is that the game interface follows different rules and standards than standard application interface. Application interface is there to make the application easier to use.
Game interface does almost the exact opposite - it CREATES the challenge for the player in any real time game. The interface is designed to take up player's time, attention, brainpower, and physical actions - all very valuable resources - just to control what happens in a game. Mastering these control techniques is essentially what "skill" is in gaming, and what creates the excitement in games and difference between players. If there is nothing (or not a lot) to master, there is no skill.
|
|
|
On July 13 2011 17:55 lorkac wrote:
Would chess be better if the game pieces were heavier?
Would the tour de france be better if the bikers had to juggle?
Would boxing be better if their feet were tied up?
Just because something is more difficult does not mean it is better.
A better comparison for chess would be if they replaced every piece except the king with queens. Game's too complicated and hard anyway.
Horrible analogies, but thanks for trying. Harder does not necessarily mean better, but in this case, BW is a better competitive game and has stronger competition (for now, at least).
|
Well, a couple of things I have to disagree with.
First, the "rotating door of champions" hypothesis doesn't really ring true to me. We see a lot of the same names in a lot of different competitions. We also have three two-time GSL champions, one master for each race (although MVP's current place among Terrans is in question I think). I think people just remember the times where a champion or "the favorite" got cheesed or meta-gamed by a lesser player. Sometimes they have a bad day or a weak matchup and do get outplayed, but no one can be perfect.
I think many people also remember players that used to be good, that we *want* to be good, but that haven't been good for a while. Fruitdealer is the perfect example. He seemed to be at the cutting edge of Zerg when he won the first GSL, but in retrospect we might realize that HopeTorture lost more than FD won. Or, perhaps, FD was really at the top and everyone just caught up too quickly while he stagnated.
Another point I disagree with is that foreigners can really compete with Koreans now. At the beginning, yes, absolutely. However, the many hours of practice that the Korean pros rack up compared to foreigners is really starting to show and that gap will only grow exponentially as time moves on. I think there are plenty of tournament results that support this view.
Finally, I just want to say that the skill ceiling is much higher in SC2 than many people realize. At the highest level games, there are still many mistakes made. We still see top players mis-rallying overlords into groups of marines. We still see sentries bunched up nicely for EMPs. We see infestors suicided senselessly. These are terribly simple examples, but that just goes to show how much room for improvement there is.
|
On July 13 2011 17:58 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 17:37 setmeal wrote:
I like this article. agree mostly. BW was hard because of all the wrong reasons such as poor interface. I'm glad SC2 is better Well if that's your complaint, Starcraft 2 has poor interface as well. - You can't see your production and research timings while in the game. You have to mentally memorize when the things complete and a really simple interface feature would "fix" this. - Units in SC2 all clump in a ball and then get destroyed by forcefields and AOE. Why isn't there a "formations" button where you can force them to move in the formation of your choice? - You can't queue researches which is really annoying when you want to get to +2s or +3s as soon as possible. You have to remember to start it yourself! And yeah I know queuing is supposed to be bad, but it's a cool interface option that helps the user. - The game only warns you about being supply blocked when you're already supply blocked. Wouldn't it be so much better if it warned you at 2 or 4 food below current supply cap? In fact, make it X food below supply cap where you can set X yourself in the game options. - Why don't those Queens just autoinject the stupid larva? They're standing next to the Hatchery all the time anyway, but the game forces the player to move away from what they're doing just to inject larva. Similarly, why can't you just set the building you want to Chronoboost and it does it on its own? - Why can't you edit the SC2 interface in the same way you can edit WoWs to get all the extra information you want in the most convenient layout? All of these and many more make Starcraft 2 harder for what you say are "all the wrong reasons". I can come up with many more "improvements" to Starcraft 2 interface, and every single one would make the game worse, not better. However, what most people don't understand about a GAME interface is that the game interface follows different rules and standards than standard application interface. Application interface is there to make the application easier to use. Game interface does almost the exact opposite - it CREATES the challenge for the player in any real time game. The interface is designed to take up player's time, attention, brainpower, and physical actions - all very valuable resources - just to control what happens in a game. Mastering these control techniques is essentially what "skill" is in gaming, and what creates the excitement in games and difference between players. If there is nothing (or not a lot) to master, there is no skill.
SC2 removed some of the old obsolete game design choices that were created in the 90's. There's a huge difference between having MBS/automine/better pathing and making everything automatic. I for one would like to watch units with more APM-intensive skills and harass possibilities instead of a player having to zoom back to base to click every single building and box workers every 20-30 seconds.
|
On July 13 2011 18:02 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +The very top players in BW can mechanically outplay virtually anyone, while still maintaining all the other facets of the game. For SC2 pros it doesn't matter as much because so many more people will be able to mechanically play at the highest level. SC2 pros will have to utilize more intelligent plays, more outsmarting opponents rather than outplaying them. Good. It's supposed to be a Real-Time Strategy game, not a Real-Time How-Fast-Can-You-Switch-Between-Buildings game. Better strategies should be rewarded, not higher APM.
Yeah, and NASL is supposed to be a North American Starleague, not a Give-Koreans-All-The-Money-Starleague. Not everything is in a name, and with RTS the RT part of the acronym is by and far the more important one anyway (much like in the acronyim, RT is two thirds of the RTS =p).
The thing is, watching "strategy" is just boring. Do you really want to see games decided by clever build orders, timing attacks, army compositions and timely tech switches? From what I can see, most people complain in LR threads when games turn out that way.
Watching superhuman displays of skill (which effective APM allows for) is what makes an RTS viable as an e-sport and what makes it fun in the first place.
|
On July 13 2011 18:09 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 18:02 Sated wrote:The very top players in BW can mechanically outplay virtually anyone, while still maintaining all the other facets of the game. For SC2 pros it doesn't matter as much because so many more people will be able to mechanically play at the highest level. SC2 pros will have to utilize more intelligent plays, more outsmarting opponents rather than outplaying them. Good. It's supposed to be a Real-Time Strategy game, not a Real-Time How-Fast-Can-You-Switch-Between-Buildings game. Better strategies should be rewarded, not higher APM. Yeah, and NASL is supposed to be a North American Starleague, not a Give-Koreans-All-The-Money-Starleague. Not everything is in a name, and with RTS the RT part of the acronym is by and far the more important one anyway (much like in the acronyim, RT is two thirds of the RTS =p). The thing is, watching "strategy" is just boring. Do you really want to see games decided by clever build orders, timing attacks, army compositions and timely tech switches? From what I can see, most people complain in LR threads when games turn out that way. Watching superhuman displays of skill (which effective APM allows for) is what makes an RTS viable as an e-sport and what makes it fun in the first place.
And we already see a huge difference between a player like MC and lesser protoss players in Code A/S. Many people, me included, get no enjoyment from APM intensive repetitive management tasks.
|
On July 13 2011 18:08 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 17:58 Talin wrote:On July 13 2011 17:37 setmeal wrote:
I like this article. agree mostly. BW was hard because of all the wrong reasons such as poor interface. I'm glad SC2 is better Well if that's your complaint, Starcraft 2 has poor interface as well. - You can't see your production and research timings while in the game. You have to mentally memorize when the things complete and a really simple interface feature would "fix" this. - Units in SC2 all clump in a ball and then get destroyed by forcefields and AOE. Why isn't there a "formations" button where you can force them to move in the formation of your choice? - You can't queue researches which is really annoying when you want to get to +2s or +3s as soon as possible. You have to remember to start it yourself! And yeah I know queuing is supposed to be bad, but it's a cool interface option that helps the user. - The game only warns you about being supply blocked when you're already supply blocked. Wouldn't it be so much better if it warned you at 2 or 4 food below current supply cap? In fact, make it X food below supply cap where you can set X yourself in the game options. - Why don't those Queens just autoinject the stupid larva? They're standing next to the Hatchery all the time anyway, but the game forces the player to move away from what they're doing just to inject larva. Similarly, why can't you just set the building you want to Chronoboost and it does it on its own? - Why can't you edit the SC2 interface in the same way you can edit WoWs to get all the extra information you want in the most convenient layout? All of these and many more make Starcraft 2 harder for what you say are "all the wrong reasons". I can come up with many more "improvements" to Starcraft 2 interface, and every single one would make the game worse, not better. However, what most people don't understand about a GAME interface is that the game interface follows different rules and standards than standard application interface. Application interface is there to make the application easier to use. Game interface does almost the exact opposite - it CREATES the challenge for the player in any real time game. The interface is designed to take up player's time, attention, brainpower, and physical actions - all very valuable resources - just to control what happens in a game. Mastering these control techniques is essentially what "skill" is in gaming, and what creates the excitement in games and difference between players. If there is nothing (or not a lot) to master, there is no skill. SC2 removed some of the old obsolete game design choices that were created in the 90's. There's a huge difference between having MBS/automine/better pathing and making everything automatic. I for one would like to watch units with more APM-intensive skills and harass possibilities instead of a player having to zoom back to base to click every single building and box workers every 20-30 seconds.
There is no conceptual difference.
We can argue on how good the decisions to remove mbs/automine are, but you can't argue that they made Brood War a worse game (for a competitive e-sport) based on principles of "good" interfaces (that are very vague for games in the first place).
And we already see a huge difference between a player like MC and lesser protoss players in Code A/S. Many people, me included, get no enjoyment from APM intensive repetitive management tasks.
I don't see such a huge difference in gameplay to be honest. It's gotten better in the last month or so (as I said, the game is becoming more mechanical), but statistics aside, the best players still aren't playing THAT better than the others. More importantly, there is almost no really impressive skill being displayed on screen.
From my experience, most people that have a problem with the mechanics / apm side of it, have problems with it from a player's perspective, not from a spectator perspective. It makes game harder to play, and people complain as a result, which is a completely different issue. I've not heard any real arguments why it makes a game worse to watch.
|
On July 13 2011 18:09 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 18:02 Sated wrote:The very top players in BW can mechanically outplay virtually anyone, while still maintaining all the other facets of the game. For SC2 pros it doesn't matter as much because so many more people will be able to mechanically play at the highest level. SC2 pros will have to utilize more intelligent plays, more outsmarting opponents rather than outplaying them. Good. It's supposed to be a Real-Time Strategy game, not a Real-Time How-Fast-Can-You-Switch-Between-Buildings game. Better strategies should be rewarded, not higher APM. Yeah, and NASL is supposed to be a North American Starleague, not a Give-Koreans-All-The-Money-Starleague. Not everything is in a name, and with RTS the RT part of the acronym is by and far the more important one anyway (much like in the acronyim, RT is two thirds of the RTS =p). The thing is, watching "strategy" is just boring. Do you really want to see games decided by clever build orders, timing attacks, army compositions and timely tech switches? From what I can see, most people complain in LR threads when games turn out that way. Watching superhuman displays of skill (which effective APM allows for) is what makes an RTS viable as an e-sport and what makes it fun in the first place.
And NONE of that is captured in a tournament. Instead you see strategy, micro, positioning, spell casters. Thats what we are watching. We aren't watching some guy using 300 apm to manually tell each worker that it still needs to mine.
To say strategy/positioning etc is boring, when thats the thing that makes crowds wiggly and jiggly.. well thats just absurd sir. All the exciting moments are coming from the things we can SEE
|
I think psy storms illustrate your idea well. I have literally never been impressed by how people use psy storm in sc2. In sc1 they are so much more dynamic because no one can cast storms like bisu or jangbi (when he was at his peak). In sc2, because every one does it more or less exactly as well storm can't do as much damage (if it did it would just be op) and is boring to watch. The same has been said about dragoons and everything in the original game: it is more dynamic.
Spoilers KT vs STX:
+ Show Spoiler +Watch what happens to even elite players in BW with 400-500 apm (17:04-17:17): And then, when you see something like this: You now how insanely skilled you must be to control that well. You know that this will happen maybe once in 10 years of progaming.
|
These article completely ignores everything that happened at the tournament scene last few months
|
I still haven't seen anyone micro their units in TWO(2) places at once while keeping the resources down. Note, dropping marines from two medivacs and ignoring them does not count as what I described.
I used to think sc2 is easy as far as mechanics go, but this is just bullshit. There's so much stuff to improve on, notably the multitasking which is auctally harder compared to BW due to the speed of the game. Macro is easier, army control too... but there's so much stuff you can still do.
And mechanics don't really win games in BW anymore, it's mainly decision making which there's plenty of in SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
