|
On October 29 2011 11:00 awesomoecalypse wrote:
no one is near the SC2 ceiling, and its unlikely anyone ever will be. For example, the difference between that bot cheat for perfect blink micro, and the best blink micro that pros have is HUGE--the bot is just exponentially better at it. And blink micro is, comparatively speaking, not even particularly difficult. But doing it utterly perfectly? Basically impossible for humans at this point, and the difference between the best human performance and the best theoretical performance is pretty substantial.
It is also ABUNDANTLY clear that the best player win much more consistently than worse players. Yes, occasionally even the greats lose to worse players--that's not a balance issue or a game flaw, its human nature. The best football teams still lose games to teams that are, by definition, worse than them. Same with baseball, basketball, tennis and any other sport anyone gives a shit about. And same thing, by the way, with BW--with ANY great BW player you can point to times where they lost to worse players. But that's not important, because over many games, the best players will win much more consistently and post consistent results and great winrates.
MVP dominates the fuck out of the competition. To a lesser extent so does Nestea, and before he started slumping, MC did as well. 6 out of the 9 "real" GSLs have been won by two guys. If you factor in the open season and super tournament, there have been 11 tournaments, of which 3 guys have won 8 (between them, well particularly between MVP and MC, those guys also have tons of results in foreign tournaments). The other 3 were won by:
Bomber, who also has an MLG victory
MMA, who placed silver in another GSL and also has an MLG victory
and Fruitdealer, who won when the game was brand new
Then you also have a guy like MKP, who has consistently placed second, over and over and over again.
That doesn't look at all like volatility to me. In fact, that looks like a game in which the talent consistently rises to the top, despite a single elimination format that introduces tremendous volatility regardless of the game (seriously, basketball isn't "volatile", but March madness is insanely unpredictable just because it is single elimination--same with the NFL playoffs). Outside of one fluke when the game first launched, the only guys to win GSLs have been the absolute best players in the world. The undisputed best terran, zerg and protoss all have multiple wins, and the only other guys to get wins have also won MLGs and made it very far in other GSLs.
If the game was as random, if it was easy for inferior players to win, if the skill ceiling were so low...this would be impossible. For example, if the best player in the world was only capable of beating worse players, say, 60% of the time...one dude winning 3 GSLs, making the finals of another, plus posting stellar international results including Blizzcon and MLG, all in less than a year, would be essentially statistically impossible. That sort of consistency can only happen if the game allows for sufficient skill differentiation that truly great players can dominate. Clearly, SC2 does this.
What do you mean by "the open season"? There were three open seasons, but these appear to be included in your calculation. Aside from the super tournament, the other least real GSL was the world championship, which was one of MVPs wins, and so can't be counted in a set in which MVP and Nestea won 6. What's going on here?
|
Canada11378 Posts
I think by the time our analogies include tic tac toe and wheel chair basketball, then our discussion is probably not going to be all that fruitful.
I just hope that the BW teams don't pick-up SC2 at the expense of BW. While SC2 is fun, BW is still magical to me and I don't want to lose the best source of BW entertainment (besides playing it).
|
On October 29 2011 11:19 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:04 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 11:02 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:59 raviy wrote:On October 29 2011 10:56 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:51 setzer wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. I guess the game could also be fucking Tic-Tac-Toe, if I am playing against a genius with 180IQ it is also going to be real rough, even though the entire came can be described in one sentence. You are looking at things way too narrowly. Awful example. The skill ceiling in Tic-Tac-Toe is so low a child can tie any master. That game is 100 percent ties. Can we establish that every game has a different skill ceiling? Chess > Connect 4 > Tic Tac Toe? From that, it's clear that one of either SCBW or SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. Claims that the skill ceilings are identical are therefore incorrect. Which basically means that if you disagree that BW has a higher skill ceiling, you're asserting that SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. yes, and there is a reason ONLY inferior bw players have switched over to sc2, because they cannot compete any longer in bw. if sc2 has a higher ceiling than bw, why did they suck so bad in bw? Because SC2 is new and experience counts for a lot. BW pro's have stated that if they switched immediately they would be stomped unceremoniously, and I see no reason to not believe them. could you link me to where the bw pros have said that?
Check the OP and the OP's sources.
|
On October 29 2011 11:10 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +
The whole point of the "lower skill" argument is to say that a lesser skilled player can beat a higher skilled player on more occasions than they would be able to in BW.
2 guys have won 6 of the 9 last GSLs. In under a year MVP has won 3 GSLs, placed second in another, and won an MLG and Blizzcon. Basically the only people who've beaten him have been other absolutely elite players like Bomber, MMA and Nestea (all of whom who have GSL wins of their own). If it were really that easy for players of lesser skill to beat great players, then how the fuck does MVP keep winning a single elimination tournament so much? If the game was really that random, it would be essentially statistically impossible for him to post that kind of consistent dominance. The game is not random. better players win more. Not just a little bit more. They consistently beat lesser competition. The ONLY guy with a GSL win who doesn't have multiple major tournament victories is Fruitdealer, who played when the game was first starting. Every other winner either has multiple GSLs, or a GSL victory, high placement other MLGs, and at least one first place victory at a major foreign tournament like MLGs. The best players win in SC2 a huge percentage of the time.
Your claims continue to confuse me (though I agree largely with the substance of your point). If you're counting the World Championship and the super tournament, then one of Nestea's wins isn't in the last 9. If you're not counting them, then one of MVP's wins isn't in the last nine. Either way, they have 5 wins in the last 9.
|
On October 29 2011 11:14 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
Precisely. You can also add that pro players must juggle knives while they play inside a moving vehicle they are steering. BAM harder game right?
The difference is that juggling knives and riding wheelchairs make the game less exciting (oh well, at least the wheelchair part but the juggling thingie still makes the game enjoyable in another way) while watching people do difficult things in BW that create tension, drama and awe is not just because it´s harder for the sake of being hard, it´s because it´s harder for the sake of excitement.
|
On October 29 2011 11:21 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:19 Doraemon wrote:On October 29 2011 11:04 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 11:02 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:59 raviy wrote:On October 29 2011 10:56 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:51 setzer wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. I guess the game could also be fucking Tic-Tac-Toe, if I am playing against a genius with 180IQ it is also going to be real rough, even though the entire came can be described in one sentence. You are looking at things way too narrowly. Awful example. The skill ceiling in Tic-Tac-Toe is so low a child can tie any master. That game is 100 percent ties. Can we establish that every game has a different skill ceiling? Chess > Connect 4 > Tic Tac Toe? From that, it's clear that one of either SCBW or SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. Claims that the skill ceilings are identical are therefore incorrect. Which basically means that if you disagree that BW has a higher skill ceiling, you're asserting that SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. yes, and there is a reason ONLY inferior bw players have switched over to sc2, because they cannot compete any longer in bw. if sc2 has a higher ceiling than bw, why did they suck so bad in bw? Because SC2 is new and experience counts for a lot. BW pro's have stated that if they switched immediately they would be stomped unceremoniously, and I see no reason to not believe them. could you link me to where the bw pros have said that? Check the OP and the OP's sources.
i don't see anywhere that it states current bw pros will get "stomped unceremoniously"
|
On October 29 2011 11:23 Slakter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:14 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
Precisely. You can also add that pro players must juggle knives while they play inside a moving vehicle they are steering. BAM harder game right? The difference is that juggling knives and riding wheelchairs make the game less exciting (oh well, at least the wheelchair part but the juggling thingie still makes the game enjoyable in another way) while watching people do difficult things in BW that create tension, drama and awe is not just because it´s harder for the sake of being hard, it´s because it´s harder for the sake of excitement.
Right, because having limited units per control group, no rally for workers, and no multiple buildings in one control group makes BW create more tension and drama right?
|
On October 29 2011 11:24 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:21 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 11:19 Doraemon wrote:On October 29 2011 11:04 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 11:02 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:59 raviy wrote:On October 29 2011 10:56 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:51 setzer wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. I guess the game could also be fucking Tic-Tac-Toe, if I am playing against a genius with 180IQ it is also going to be real rough, even though the entire came can be described in one sentence. You are looking at things way too narrowly. Awful example. The skill ceiling in Tic-Tac-Toe is so low a child can tie any master. That game is 100 percent ties. Can we establish that every game has a different skill ceiling? Chess > Connect 4 > Tic Tac Toe? From that, it's clear that one of either SCBW or SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. Claims that the skill ceilings are identical are therefore incorrect. Which basically means that if you disagree that BW has a higher skill ceiling, you're asserting that SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. yes, and there is a reason ONLY inferior bw players have switched over to sc2, because they cannot compete any longer in bw. if sc2 has a higher ceiling than bw, why did they suck so bad in bw? Because SC2 is new and experience counts for a lot. BW pro's have stated that if they switched immediately they would be stomped unceremoniously, and I see no reason to not believe them. could you link me to where the bw pros have said that? Check the OP and the OP's sources. i don't see anywhere that it states current bw pros will get "stomped unceremoniously"
Minor embellishment by me.
|
There's a few arguments of SC2 that have been pretty quickly dissipated quickly, remember when they were arguing SC2 was too volatile? That might have been true earlier (they nerfed a lot of one base timings), but even still, the same people are dominating. You got Nestea and MVP at the top, and for foreigners HuK has still been pushing hard, stephano has won two major tournaments with koreans, and IdrA just came back from his slump as wel.
The next is the SC2 skill ceiling is low, at least in comparison to brood war, well technical skill is obviously lower because lets face it, there was a lot of busy work in brood war (no auto mining, control groups, etc.) But the speed of starcraft 2 is faster than brood war, and the way armies are that people say the supply limit should be at 300. Anyways people make the same argument with other video game sequels for example SF4 vs SF3rd strike, and honestly because the game is constantly evolving, there will always be someone who can push the envelope. I mean especially in a game as complicated as SC2
|
What do you mean by "the open season"? There were three open seasons, but these appear to be included in your calculation. Aside from the super tournament, the other least real GSL was the world championship, which was one of MVPs wins, and so can't be counted in a set in which MVP and Nestea won 6. What's going on here?
You're right I was accidentally counting a Nestea open win as a "normal" GSL win.
But still, there have been 11 GSLs including the open seasons and super tournament/world championship
Fruitdealer won the first
Nestea won the 2nd
MC won the 3rd
MVP won the 4th
MC won the fifth
MVP won the sixth (world championship)
Nestea won the 7th
Polt won the 8th, the super tournament (I misspoke by saying Bomber had won one, must have been thinking of code a)
Nestea won the 9th
MVP won the 10th
MMA won the 11th
So, out of 11, 8 were won by 3 guys, and the guys who haven't won multiples have posted consistent stellar results across the board (apart from FD, who is a fluke due to the game just coming out).
edit:
Your claims continue to confuse me (though I agree largely with the substance of your point). If you're counting the World Championship and the super tournament, then one of Nestea's wins isn't in the last 9. If you're not counting them, then one of MVP's wins isn't in the last nine. Either way, they have 5 wins in the last 9.
You're right I made a mistake counting Nestea's open win as being more recent. Regardless, the point about better players consistently dominating stands.
|
On October 29 2011 11:19 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:00 awesomoecalypse wrote:
no one is near the SC2 ceiling, and its unlikely anyone ever will be. For example, the difference between that bot cheat for perfect blink micro, and the best blink micro that pros have is HUGE--the bot is just exponentially better at it. And blink micro is, comparatively speaking, not even particularly difficult. But doing it utterly perfectly? Basically impossible for humans at this point, and the difference between the best human performance and the best theoretical performance is pretty substantial.
It is also ABUNDANTLY clear that the best player win much more consistently than worse players. Yes, occasionally even the greats lose to worse players--that's not a balance issue or a game flaw, its human nature. The best football teams still lose games to teams that are, by definition, worse than them. Same with baseball, basketball, tennis and any other sport anyone gives a shit about. And same thing, by the way, with BW--with ANY great BW player you can point to times where they lost to worse players. But that's not important, because over many games, the best players will win much more consistently and post consistent results and great winrates.
MVP dominates the fuck out of the competition. To a lesser extent so does Nestea, and before he started slumping, MC did as well. 6 out of the 9 "real" GSLs have been won by two guys. If you factor in the open season and super tournament, there have been 11 tournaments, of which 3 guys have won 8 (between them, well particularly between MVP and MC, those guys also have tons of results in foreign tournaments). The other 3 were won by:
Bomber, who also has an MLG victory
MMA, who placed silver in another GSL and also has an MLG victory
and Fruitdealer, who won when the game was brand new
Then you also have a guy like MKP, who has consistently placed second, over and over and over again.
That doesn't look at all like volatility to me. In fact, that looks like a game in which the talent consistently rises to the top, despite a single elimination format that introduces tremendous volatility regardless of the game (seriously, basketball isn't "volatile", but March madness is insanely unpredictable just because it is single elimination--same with the NFL playoffs). Outside of one fluke when the game first launched, the only guys to win GSLs have been the absolute best players in the world. The undisputed best terran, zerg and protoss all have multiple wins, and the only other guys to get wins have also won MLGs and made it very far in other GSLs.
If the game was as random, if it was easy for inferior players to win, if the skill ceiling were so low...this would be impossible. For example, if the best player in the world was only capable of beating worse players, say, 60% of the time...one dude winning 3 GSLs, making the finals of another, plus posting stellar international results including Blizzcon and MLG, all in less than a year, would be essentially statistically impossible. That sort of consistency can only happen if the game allows for sufficient skill differentiation that truly great players can dominate. Clearly, SC2 does this. What do you mean by "the open season"? There were three open seasons, but these appear to be included in your calculation. Aside from the super tournament, the other least real GSL was the world championship, which was one of MVPs wins, and so can't be counted in a set in which MVP and Nestea won 6. What's going on here?
Basically every GSL but super tournament counts. I feel so bad for Polt because people keep overlooking him despite fact that he won biggst GSL of the year.
|
On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
your argument does have some truth to it but sometimes some handicaps can make a game "better" to a reasonable extent
if the next sc game created had automated blink micro, auto queen inject, toggable auto moneyspend mode, etc. then the game would not be as exciting to watch even though it seems like every player is microing/macroing perfectly because as a viewer you know that the game does not take much skill to play
reason why bw can be better is because there are actually highly skilled players who can play at that high level - through all those handicaps and do amazing things. as a viewer if you understand how hard it is to execute the amazing things they do in games, then it does create more excitement/awe
|
On October 29 2011 11:25 ScoutingDrone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:23 Slakter wrote:On October 29 2011 11:14 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
Precisely. You can also add that pro players must juggle knives while they play inside a moving vehicle they are steering. BAM harder game right? The difference is that juggling knives and riding wheelchairs make the game less exciting (oh well, at least the wheelchair part but the juggling thingie still makes the game enjoyable in another way) while watching people do difficult things in BW that create tension, drama and awe is not just because it´s harder for the sake of being hard, it´s because it´s harder for the sake of excitement. Right, because having limited units per control group, no rally for workers, and no multiple buildings in one control group makes BW create more tension and drama right?
Fuck yeah it does! Every time you watch someone miss adding workers to their mineral line for a long time while their opponent didnt make that mistake you get drama and tension, it´s a hard thing to do that gives you a small advantage. Those things dont really exist (at least not as many) in SC2 at the moment.
|
On October 29 2011 11:28 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +
What do you mean by "the open season"? There were three open seasons, but these appear to be included in your calculation. Aside from the super tournament, the other least real GSL was the world championship, which was one of MVPs wins, and so can't be counted in a set in which MVP and Nestea won 6. What's going on here?
You're right I was accidentally counting a Nestea open win as a "normal" GSL win. But still, there have been 11 GSLs including the open seasons and super tournament/world championship Fruitdealer won the first Nestea won the 2nd MC won the 3rd MVP won the 4th MC won the fifth MVP won the sixth (world championship) Nestea won the 7th Polt won the 8th, the super tournament (I misspoke by saying Bomber had won one, must have been thinking of code a) Nestea won the 9th MVP won the 10th MMA won the 11th So, out of 11, 8 were won by 3 guys, and the guys who haven't won multiples have posted consistent stellar results across the board (apart from FD, who is a fluke due to the game just coming out). edit: Show nested quote +Your claims continue to confuse me (though I agree largely with the substance of your point). If you're counting the World Championship and the super tournament, then one of Nestea's wins isn't in the last 9. If you're not counting them, then one of MVP's wins isn't in the last nine. Either way, they have 5 wins in the last 9. You're right I made a mistake counting Nestea's open win as being more recent. Regardless, the point about better players consistently dominating stands.
Ok. As I said, you're spot on with the substance of your point. There's no better evidence of a game allowing higher skill levels to show than its being dominated by a few players. Tennis displays this to an even greater extent than the Starcrafts, Golf to a lesser extent.
SC2 has been doing very well in this regard, so there is absolutely no evidence yet that there is skill ceiling preventing the best from excelling.
|
Estonia4644 Posts
holy shit. exciting and exhilarating times for the whole starcraft community tbh O_________O
|
On October 29 2011 11:32 lFrost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
your argument does have some truth to it but sometimes some handicaps can make a game "better" if the next sc game created had automated blink micro, auto queen inject, toggable auto moneyspend mode, etc. then the game would not be as exciting to watch even though it seems like every player is microing/macroing perfectly because as a viewer you know that the game does not take much skill to play reason why bw can be better is because there are actually highly skilled players who can play at that high level - through all those handicaps and do amazing things. as a viewer if you understand how hard it is to execute the amazing things they do in games, then it does create more excitement/awe
There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill.
For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions.
Edit: On the second thought, having auto inject on queens would be bad because players wont have the option to save energy on a queen for creep tumor/transfusion. I guess this is why Blizzard decided not to have auto-inject for queens, which is a good choice. However, things like limited control groups or no auto-mining for workers in BW have no excuse, and although it makes BW "harder", it doesn't make it "better".
|
the physical act of macroing is easier, that cannot be denied
but the mental aspect of it is no different
boxer had notoriously bad macro in bw and in sc2 this has remained unchanged
if macroing was really as easy as you make it out to be, then why does he still have this problem? relative to korean sc2 progamers, boxer macro is as bad as it was relative to bw progamers
where are there still players who have good macro and some that have bad macro, when apparently all the skill in macroing has been removed?
there's so much more to macro than the mechanical element of it, i don't even know where to begin
|
|
|
bisu's pvz would be like herO's with better mechanics and multitasking 
|
On October 29 2011 11:42 ScoutingDrone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:32 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
your argument does have some truth to it but sometimes some handicaps can make a game "better" if the next sc game created had automated blink micro, auto queen inject, toggable auto moneyspend mode, etc. then the game would not be as exciting to watch even though it seems like every player is microing/macroing perfectly because as a viewer you know that the game does not take much skill to play reason why bw can be better is because there are actually highly skilled players who can play at that high level - through all those handicaps and do amazing things. as a viewer if you understand how hard it is to execute the amazing things they do in games, then it does create more excitement/awe There's a difference between taking out repetitive/unnecessary parts of the game vs. taking out parts of a game that requires real skill. For example I won't be bothered if they had auto inject for queens. However making stalkers auto blink would be bad because blink micro takes real "skill" rather than "repetitive unnecessary tasks". And most of the things that makes BW "harder" like control group restrictions and no auto-mining for workers require BW players to make more "repetitive" actions rather than "skilled" actions.
Your opinion on what is unnecessary and repetative is not the same as mine. Injecting larva is just as repetative as sending your workers to mine.
And unit selection is the thing that SC2 really needs at the moment, or something like it. Without it deathball armies just 1a over eachother and thats that. Ofcourse im exaggerating but the point remains. In BW you have small armies clash all over the map while in SC2 you have one big fat clump of units fighting another clump of units.
One thing would love for Blizz to do would be to make chrono boost and mules a cooldown spell instead of an energy spell. That way you HAVE to use that mule or else you lose precious time mining. That way we get a bit more of a macro requirment in the game without needing to nerf the engine. And yes, its repetative but thats the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
