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.
No, but you see the difference that it makes and the consequences of not telling each worker that he needs to mine in a timely fashion.
To say strategy/positioning etc is boring, when thats the thing that makes crowds wiggly and jiggly.. well thats just absurd sir.
Where on earth did you see strategy make crowd wiggly and jiggly? -_-
Positioning is mechanics/execution and an extension of micro for the most part. And you can only appreciate player's ability to position and control his units when you know that it's not the ONLY thing he needs to look at.
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 FlashJaedongBisu 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?
We won't see a bonjwa in WoL. It will be out for less than 3 years before everyone has completely moved on to HotS and so on for HotS. It will be a decade before things like that happen and most of us will have long since moved on to another "thing".
I dont understand why so many people repead one after another that SC2 is a game where strategical thinking is the most important thing, and mechanics dont matter so much, and bw was all about who can click faster without any thought put in the game, and in the same a whole year, bazzilion tournaments and leagues later, almost all of the best sc2 players are former bw pros/foreign players with extremely high apm.
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.
No, but you see the difference that it makes and the consequences of not telling each worker that he needs to mine in a timely fashion.
To say strategy/positioning etc is boring, when thats the thing that makes crowds wiggly and jiggly.. well thats just absurd sir.
Where on earth did you see strategy make crowd wiggly and jiggly? -_-
Positioning is mechanics/execution and an extension of micro for the most part. And you can only appreciate player's ability to position and control his units when you know that it's not the ONLY thing he needs to look at.
A strategy that makes the crowd wiggly and jiggly? How about Huk's Mothership rush? That's just an extreme example but saying that strategy isn't fun to watch is just stupid. I'd rather watch what the players are doing (clever build orders, timing attacks, timely tech switches etc. as you call it) then staring at their mineral line and be amazed at how well they can send probes to mine.
I have to agree with this completely, though tbh I didn't come into the scene until sc2. Skill ceiling is such an interesting intangible... I felt the same way explaining counter strike's appeal to players who disliked it, the difference in difficulty in, say, recoil control vs a game like CoD.
On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote: Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics.
Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p
What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback.
People already made many brilliant thread about units being clumped, Lalush made great thread about how expanding is non-rewarding in sc2, basically there is no point of having more than 2.5-3 mining bases + maynarding is almost useless. There is no positional play, if there is its cut half by forcefields.
I think the whole casual friendly design did more bad than good, i feel each game i play is so fragile and easy to slip through my fingers, i cannot bet on my mechanics to save me if i do something wrong, i know i have to read my opponent by 100% otherwise ill fail.
On July 13 2011 18:17 Andr3 wrote: 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.
This is a good point. I think Macro is basically the only aspect that has been simplified compared to BW (and lets be honest, who didn't think we were going to get MBS etc? BW had the clunkiest UI and bugs, if SC2 had kept them it would've been horrific to 90% of the casual audience - this is still a game)
Stuff dies so so quickly in SC2 compared to BW that its actually punishes mistakes (move commanding, not paying attention etc.) very quickly and harshly. At the moment, stuff like that might come across as a dice roll, but with increasing player skill it will even out. There has been so much unexplored in SC2 so far that its unfair on the game to write stuff like this. Look at Sage's PvZ. Imagine that style, but with better mechanics and multitasking... that excites me so so much.
The OP is over dramatizing the presence of a lower skill ceiling.
Even without the need for incredibly strong mechanics, professional players (for the most part) have not been utilizing better micro, unit control and blitzkriegs of orchestrated multi pronged attacks, all of which should be easier to do. It's mostly been sitting around waiting for a big blob of units and attacking with an upgrade.
Believe me when I say that players still have A LOT more they can do. The games are getting better and better as players slowly incorporate more apm and finer control (Puma's play vs MC anyone?).
On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote: Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics.
Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p
What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback.
People already made many brilliant thread about units being clumped, Lalush made great thread about how expanding is non-rewarding in sc2, basically there is no point of having more than 2.5-3 mining bases + maynarding is almost useless. There is no positional play, if there is its cut half by forcefields.
I think the whole casual friendly design did more bad than good, i feel each game i play is so fragile and easy to slip through my fingers, i cannot bet on my mechanics to save me if i do something wrong, i know i have to read my opponent by 100% otherwise ill fail.
Age of Empires 1 doesn't even have rally points on production buildings.
I guess Starcraft 1 will never be as hardcore and competitive as AoE, SC1 isn't a REAL esport.
Real esports require you to click 36 times to move a unit.
On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote: Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics.
Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p
What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback.
What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you say that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did player 1 deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one to make a comeback.
I really just hate when people talk about things like this. When you talk about bonjwa, you think of brood war. Brood war and Starcraft 2 are 2 different games. Period.
On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote: Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics.
Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p
What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback.
People already made many brilliant thread about units being clumped, Lalush made great thread about how expanding is non-rewarding in sc2, basically there is no point of having more than 2.5-3 mining bases + maynarding is almost useless. There is no positional play, if there is its cut half by forcefields.
I think the whole casual friendly design did more bad than good, i feel each game i play is so fragile and easy to slip through my fingers, i cannot bet on my mechanics to save me if i do something wrong, i know i have to read my opponent by 100% otherwise ill fail.
Age of Empires 1 doesn't even have rally points on production buildings.
I guess Starcraft 1 will never be as hardcore and competitive as AoE, SC1 isn't a REAL esport.
Real esports require you to click 36 times to move a unit.
dune argument ? my post wasnt about it
To add to my previous comment, i am afraid even in 2-3 years we won't see that much more multi-tasking, game is too fast paced, units deal to much dps, so microing them on small scale (drops/small unit harass) in mid game gives u much less than performing macro tasks and "leaving them by". People who play sc2 today are few a/b bw teamers and wc3 legends which have enough apm to multitask, yet they have problems with it, why? That is the question, its not their capabilities.
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.
You say you don't see a difference in gameplay, i see matches where MC would have held a push just by being better at both micro, macro and positioning.
Again, to me it's no more interesting knowing someone is telling miners to mine and individual buildings to build that it would be if he was doing calculus on the side while playing. It's a boring repetitive task that is a pure remnant of old game design dating back to the 90's RTS era.
"There is almost no really impressive skill being displayed on screen" - That's you opinion. I'm pretty sure it's not shared by the 80k+ viewers of the recent finals at DH/MLG/HSC/NASL. If you don't find what's going down impressive why watch or even care about SC2? I'm growing so tired of all these whiners that still complain about the same shit even though the level of play has increased tenfold since the early GSL 1-baseing days, and will continue to increase as new awesome players emerge and old ones get better.
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
What the..? Didn't the thread say watch some BW VODs before you comment on something like this?
If you wanna talk about useless APM I would recommend the bisu vs savior MSL grand final for starters.
Although it also featured a never before seen build that was created just for the grand final, which is why the zerg lost so badly. I guess BW is not really about strategy, its about sending workers to mine.
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.
lol@this. Anyone with some sense for statistics would find it ridiculous that after less than 10 GSL tournaments, we are in any position at all to make claims about general game balance/quality of competition, specifically based upon player dominance as it relates to the number of tournament wins.
Frankly, I find it shocking, and rather indicative of these player's strengths (and their comparative separation from the field), that three players have already managed to win two GSL tournaments.
The people who want mechanics to not play a role in the game are off base, if you want a real strategy game then you should play chess. There are only so many 'strategies' to use, and unless you fancy the game turning into an elaborate version of rock-paper-scissors, mechanics are important.
Good Brood War players can take a horrible build order disadvantage and turn it into a win through superior mechanics. I feel like that's an important part of the game, and it's why I find SC2 too boring to watch most of the time (well, that and the 1a deathball syndrome).
I agree that there won't ever be an SC2 'bonjwa', the game just isn't deep enough for a true genius to carve out their place in it.
On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote: Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics.
Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p
What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback.
What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one.
He is not contradicting himself. More like you sound that your only experience with bw is from reading posts on this forum. One have to play the game to understand it and after that to express opinions, I think. I see this as a major problem in these threads, that people who are playing sc2 dont have any experience with bw and say things, which they have heard, but not really experienced in a game.
Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play).
EPT
bonjwa 
