On October 29 2011 16:31 Cyrox wrote: It was a product out of luck. The first and ever perfect RTS. The goal was to make a good game and to make money. I guarantee you there were more passion involved then.
SC2 was the product of a carefully planned formula to make as much money as possible on the success of BW and the RTS eSports hype it created for as little investing and effort as possible.
The truth is out there. That newschool players think SC2 is "great" and "complex" is both amusing and sad at the same time.
I know alot of players that couldnt play BW for shit that love SC2. You might think it's a good thing and that it made the community bigger. "Better" graphics had the same impact. A better community of more ignorant players only gives Activision more money.
What you had to invest in yourself to become good at BW isn't close to SC2.
Dude...just stop. Seriously. It's not funny any more.
It's harder to hit A on iCCup then to get to Grandmaster. It's harder to be at the level at which you can take games of progamers. BW is harder, we get it, but SC2 is still complex. Is it simpler in comparison to BW? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that it has a high level of complexity. StarCraft 2 was in production for a very long time, and cost 100 million dollars or something. If they were half-assing to make a sub-par product to ride BW's success, then they would have, and they didn't.
Stop the spite. SC2 isn't BW, BW is better, whatever. The fact that SC2 is successful isn't a result of riding BW's success, it's not because Activision is tricking the 'ignorant' playerbase into buying a subpar product, it's successful because it's a great game and people love it. And there are millions of people who love it.
Sure it's a good game compared to all games. Compared to good esports games ? Barely qualifies as one. Also, as I have already explained, "millions" of people watch, play and participate in the community because alot of other people does that, because of the PR created by Activision employees. It's a manufactured fad.
I mean no offense but it's important to get the truth out there. I'm sorry.
Actually, alot of people complain that Blizzard hasn't done enough to promote sc2 as an e-sport. Blizzard did not create sc2 esports, the passion of the fanbase did. My love of watching sc2 was not manufactured, and it is not a fad. And activision did not make sc2, blizzard did, activision is only a company that owns blizzard. It does not barely qualify as an esport game, it head over heels qualifies as an esport game, and goddamn good one. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad, or even less good. You are not the final judge of whether sc2 should be an esport or not, the sc2 fans are.
I followed bw for 3 years before sc2 beta, and when the beta came out I started playing it, not because I'm some hipster newbie that was brainwashed by evil activision overlords trying to steal my money. I played sc2, because I liked BW, I started watching pro sc2 because I liked watching pro BW. Everything is there, it's almost the same game. Every time I think otherwise I sometimes go back and watch an old vod of bw, and it's absolutely amazing how similar certain things are that you just wouldn't think would be similar.
As far as sc2 taking more skill goes, lets do this one thing, as a thought experiment. A certain pro player has, lets say, X apm. BW takes ALOT of that apm just to macro. And that's a skill. SC2 takes roughly 50% of that to macro. Or maybe apm is the wrong word, because the actual amount of actions aren't that much less, but because of MBS it's easier to do, apm really isn't the best end all way to measure this. BUT. This doesn't mean this BW pro should play sc2 with an overall lower apm than they did BW. Rather, they should play with the same apm, only now they can reallocate that apm to other things. Better micro, better tactics, better multi pronged harassment, better flanks, better drops. You will literally never run out of skill ceiling, it's absolutely humanly impossible to play SC2 perfectly in every possible way.
So I don't like it when people say sc2 takes less skill. Because it's built upon a false premise that doesn't take into consideration that you're not playing against a fixed skill level AI, your playing against other humans, and the challenge of any game will always come from the other humans you are playing. Humans do not magically become easier to beat in sc2. If you're a bw pro that has amazing multitasking, you will be FINE in sc2, you WILL be able to differentiate yourself, and you WILL NEVER run out of skill ceiling and ways to improve. Period.
I loved watching them play BW, and I can't wait to see Flash and Bisu tearing it up in SC2, because they are both amazing awesome games and amazing awesome esports.
On October 29 2011 14:42 ScoutingDrone wrote: Since many people are saying BW is "better" because it is "harder" to play, I suggest Blizzard patch BW so that each control group can hold max 1 unit instead of 12, remove rally points from all production buildings, and remove the ability to automatically attack ("a" attack) so they have to manually right click on every unit to attack.
This would definitely increase the "skill ceiling" for BW, thus making BW a better game.
User was temp banned for this post.
not to be an ass, but i think this guy has a pretty valid point and got temp banned. he's just using an extreme example to counter BW player arguments about making the game harder.
No, thats an absolutely retarded point. Same as saying
Since many people are saying SC2 is "better" because you dont have to struggle with the interface to play, I suggest Blizzard patch sc2 so that macro could be done with toggles, and low health units would automatically retreat during a fight, the spells automatically cast themselves on the optimal targets, and all the macro mechanics occurred automatically. Exaggeration/Hyperbole is never a good point.
Some of those changes would be decision making engines which would remove decisions which have better-worse outcomes from the game. That is different than an interface allowing a player to make the same, simple always correct decisions more easily.
Agreed with Darth. Sorry but your examples do not make sense lol. Moving units with low HP back, for example, will not necessarily help. A human brain is infinitely more smarter than an AI in deciding what is an "optimal" target too. An AI can't read your mind (yet!). Also, having everything be automatic, once again, is a bad example. You are talking about 0 work. The original poster's argument is comparing lots of work to an insane amount of work (like 1 unit per control group). 0 work = no strategy regarding what you spend your time/APM on. Insane work = you still have to choose, for example, should i even make control groups? Or should I just box and click units when I need to, and just do other things with those few actions needed to make a control group?
On October 29 2011 00:01 GTLAllDayEveryDay wrote: I cant wait for the BW pros to switch over so they can get man handled. It doesnt take too much talent to be the top player at a game that only a handful of players play. SC2 increased the player count many times over. It's funny to see all these BW fanboys speaking hypothetical about their heroes dominating the SC2, but you damn well know in their hearts they're hoping they don't switch because then if players like FlaSh, Jaedong, Bisu switch and become good, but don't reach the mind boggling heights of their BW glory, it just proves that they're not RTS gods, just exceptional BW players that were able to excel in a mechanically difficult game -- remember this is a strategy game, it shouldn't take 400 APM to execute a strategy. Also BW became a very niche thing over the years, like curling.
wow. can u write even more bullshit??
what the! if you have 400 APM and you are still on PAR with a guy with 100 APM, then the game is screwed. It will be like any ordinary crap RTS games in which practising more has no effect.
Go play Spam Click v3 then. 400 APM were needed because the game was stupidly user unfriendly. It is not anymore, allowing more people without nerdy skills and time to express their strategical abilities. In a strategy game, that is what is important.
When watching pro-games and seeing them hit 200-300APM and STILL not doing everything that's needed in SC2, then that goes to show you are still wrong. APM is needed.
APM means, I can click fast. I does not mean I can click where it matters all the time. Click fast can be achieve by any monkey, clicking where is matters have to though. Their is still ways to improve in this domain. Look at EAPM. Their removed the spam, they fall to 60-100, maybe 200 in fights. So the standard 400 APM in BW, means 60 useful actions in reality. Hugh? What?
with every post, you show how little you know.
the top bw pros make meaningful clicks, they can multi task like monsters with multi pronged battles on the map while macroing and managing their bases.
allow me with an example:
Amazing to watch, really makes me want to clean up my play/mechanics.
That is really fantastic. Couple of huge things I noticed, SC2 tosses need to use more observers. Seriously he's constantly running obs around everywhere. SC2 siege tanks and hard counters are way stronger than BW.
These guys need to start playing SC2 before we even really consider any more major patches, who knows what they will innovate.
Edit: And as much as I love SC2, I gotta say that BW play does appear to be lightyears ahead of where SC2 is right now.
On October 29 2011 00:01 GTLAllDayEveryDay wrote: I cant wait for the BW pros to switch over so they can get man handled. It doesnt take too much talent to be the top player at a game that only a handful of players play. SC2 increased the player count many times over. It's funny to see all these BW fanboys speaking hypothetical about their heroes dominating the SC2, but you damn well know in their hearts they're hoping they don't switch because then if players like FlaSh, Jaedong, Bisu switch and become good, but don't reach the mind boggling heights of their BW glory, it just proves that they're not RTS gods, just exceptional BW players that were able to excel in a mechanically difficult game -- remember this is a strategy game, it shouldn't take 400 APM to execute a strategy. Also BW became a very niche thing over the years, like curling.
wow. can u write even more bullshit??
what the! if you have 400 APM and you are still on PAR with a guy with 100 APM, then the game is screwed. It will be like any ordinary crap RTS games in which practising more has no effect.
Go play Spam Click v3 then. 400 APM were needed because the game was stupidly user unfriendly. It is not anymore, allowing more people without nerdy skills and time to express their strategical abilities. In a strategy game, that is what is important.
When watching pro-games and seeing them hit 200-300APM and STILL not doing everything that's needed in SC2, then that goes to show you are still wrong. APM is needed.
APM means, I can click fast. I does not mean I can click where it matters all the time. Click fast can be achieve by any monkey, clicking where is matters have to though. Their is still ways to improve in this domain. Look at EAPM. Their removed the spam, they fall to 60-100, maybe 200 in fights. So the standard 400 APM in BW, means 60 useful actions in reality. Hugh? What?
with every post, you show how little you know.
the top bw pros make meaningful clicks, they can multi task like monsters with multi pronged battles on the map while macroing and managing their bases.
Amazing to watch, really makes me want to clean up my play/mechanics.
That is really fantastic. Couple of huge things I noticed, SC2 tosses need to use more observers. Seriously he's constantly running obs around everywhere. SC2 siege tanks and hard counters are way stronger than BW.
These guys need to start playing SC2 before we even really consider any more major patches, who knows what they will innovate.
Edit: And as much as I love SC2, I gotta say that BW play does appear to be lightyears ahead of where SC2 is right now.
Well of course, BW is like 10 times older than SC2 :D
But yes TBLS is really fun to watch lol. Can't wait to see what the future of esports will hold. Let alone in 50 years lol.
what people fail to realize is even though BW favored heavy mechanics, SC2 still favors it. perhaps even more on
in BW it was harder to move armies across the map and in SC2 it is easier. however in SC2 units auto-clump, meaning a BW pro who already can move his army across the map pre-spread in seperate groups will now be able to march his army across the map without it clumping up meaning its much more immune to AOE
right now in SC2 you COULD put all your units into 1 control group, but it still would make them clump up and be weak to AoE.
when BW pros switch over you will witness a new game where you MUST have absolute superb army micro or else your enemy will be immune to AoE but you will not, and you will lose. Only players with BW level army-control-mechanics will be able to spread their units properly and make them immune to AoE as they march across the map
in BW you needed sick mechanics to macro well, in Sc2 its much easier to macro well
however, in BW you needed sick mechanics to battle well and in Sc2 it is still the same. The mass-army-select is actually hurting most SC2 players right now, and once BW pros switch over and realize they cna use their superior mechanics to basically make their units "never clump up"
and also, consider this. because you still need sick bw level mechanics to battle well in Sc2 (and we will witness this being true sooner than we expect), that means top bw level mechanics will still be needed to be the best once the game makes this final shift.
and heres what i mean by this. assuming both players need super sick mechanics to "battle well", in bw you saw the same thing however players needed to prioritize and pick when to macro during the battles to make sure they dont dry up at home
well, in sc2 the players will not need to prioritize because macro'ing only requires a fraction of the APM that it did in BW. however this just means BOTH PLAYERS are now free from the need to macro at the bw level, which means BOTH PLAYERS now will simply be putting those mechanics into MORE BATTLE MICRO.
before in BW, players had to pick when to put their mechanics into macro'ing, now macro'ing doesnt require as much mechanics. but that simply means both players will still need to put their mechanics into battle micro or they will lose. so the level of mechanics is still the same, its simply shifted from macro to micro
the pro players still will need BW level mechanics but in Sc2 they will just be putting almost all of it into battle micro with less time spent macro'ing. players still must constantly be watching their army and paying attention to it nonstop because alot of times in pro games its constant pressure and battle micro going on as one army is constantly poking at the enemies base, and players need to be able to micro that army properly and always make sure its safe so players still will need top level mechanics all the time, because one slip up equals dead army and you lose
On October 29 2011 17:07 roymarthyup wrote: what people fail to realize is even though BW favored heavy mechanics, SC2 still favors it. perhaps even more on
in BW it was harder to move armies across the map and in SC2 it is easier. however in SC2 units auto-clump, meaning a BW pro who already can move his army across the map pre-spread in seperate groups will now be able to march his army across the map without it clumping up meaning its much more immune to AOE
right now in SC2 you COULD put all your units into 1 control group, but it still would make them clump up and be weak to AoE.
when BW pros switch over you will witness a new game where you MUST have absolute superb army micro or else your enemy will be immune to AoE but you will not, and you will lose. Only players with BW level army-control-mechanics will be able to spread their units properly and make them immune to AoE as they march across the map
in BW you needed sick mechanics to macro well, in Sc2 its much easier to macro well
however, in BW you needed sick mechanics to battle well and in Sc2 it is still the same. The mass-army-select is actually hurting most SC2 players right now, and once BW pros switch over and realize they cna use their superior mechanics to basically make their units "never clump up"
and also, consider this. because you still need sick bw level mechanics to battle well in Sc2 (and we will witness this being true sooner than we expect), that means top bw level mechanics will still be needed to be the best once the game makes this final shift.
and heres what i mean by this. assuming both players need super sick mechanics to "battle well", in bw you saw the same thing however players needed to prioritize and pick when to macro during the battles to make sure they dont dry up at home
well, in sc2 the players will not need to prioritize because macro'ing only requires a fraction of the APM that it did in BW. however this just means BOTH PLAYERS are now free from the need to macro at the bw level, which means BOTH PLAYERS now will simply be putting those mechanics into MORE BATTLE MICRO.
before in BW, players had to pick when to put their mechanics into macro'ing, now macro'ing doesnt require as much mechanics. but that simply means both players will still need to put their mechanics into battle micro or they will lose. so the level of mechanics is still the same, its simply shifted from macro to micro
the pro players still will need BW level mechanics but in Sc2 they will just be putting almost all of it into battle micro with less time spent macro'ing. players still must constantly be watching their army and paying attention to it nonstop because alot of times in pro games its constant pressure and battle micro going on as one army is constantly poking at the enemies base, and players need to be able to micro that army properly and always make sure its safe so players still will need top level mechanics all the time, because one slip up equals dead army and you lose
Great point. I am still not sure whether or not I like the clumping, having armies pre-spread so that pros do not have to worry about it makes battles more interesting. But if it takes more skill to separate (as Blizzard intends it to be) and people start doing it in the future, it will be really epic to see!
I am not really familiar with KesPa, but if they switch to SC2, can their players compete outside of KesPa events? I remember seeing games of BW players at WCG, but in SC2 there are a lot of big tournaments outside of korea, would they be allowed to compete in them? What about player transfers, can teams like EG buy top players from former BW teams (I hope they won't). What would players not currently in KesPa have to do to compete in their tournaments?
On October 29 2011 17:31 Sandermatt wrote: I am not really familiar with KesPa, but if they switch to SC2, can their players compete outside of KesPa events? I remember seeing games of BW players at WCG, but in SC2 there are a lot of big tournaments outside of korea, would they be allowed to compete in them? What about player transfers, can teams like EG buy top players from former BW teams (I hope they won't). What would players not currently in KesPa have to do to compete in their tournaments?
lol. Sure, if EG has that kind of money. The top players all command salaries of $200-300k a year, with Flash probably being around the range of 400k. I highly doubt any of the SC2 teams right now would ever be able to outbid the largest telecommunication/electronics companies in Korea for their star players.
I don't care about Brood War but I feel sorry for these pros being forced to play SC2, an inferior game. Before I believed that SC2 had the potential to be a better game than BW, but after Blizzcon I have lost hope. Blizzard don't have the balls to do what's necessary to make SC2 a great game.
Although for KeSPA to do this in the first place the BW situation must've been dire, so I suppose the pros lose either way.
On October 29 2011 17:31 Sandermatt wrote: I am not really familiar with KesPa, but if they switch to SC2, can their players compete outside of KesPa events? I remember seeing games of BW players at WCG, but in SC2 there are a lot of big tournaments outside of korea, would they be allowed to compete in them? What about player transfers, can teams like EG buy top players from former BW teams (I hope they won't). What would players not currently in KesPa have to do to compete in their tournaments?
Players will be able to compete in WCG but they won't be able to compete in GSL. Gom will be cleaned up if KeSPA takes control.
On October 29 2011 17:07 roymarthyup wrote: [Big wall of text about army control being a very important differentiating factor in SC2 to determine skill]
This guy speaks truth. They're different games and we can't say for a fact that BW>SC2. And they both require a very high amount of skill and decision making. Why can't we all just let's see how this unfolds instead of having pages of arguments which bring us nowhere?
On October 29 2011 17:39 Archerylady wrote: I don't care about Brood War but I feel sorry for these pros being forced to play SC2, an inferior game. Before I believed that SC2 had the potential to be a better game than BW, but after Blizzcon I have lost hope. Blizzard don't have the balls to do what's necessary to make SC2 a great game.
Although for KeSPA to do this in the first place the BW situation must've been dire, so I suppose the pros lose either way.
What exactly was the bad thing that happend at Blizzcon? You had a great GSL finals and a very good tournament by Blizzard (granted broadcasting choices were a little bad but still) with a great finals. The only bad thing that can really be said about that weakend is that if you were a Nestea fan you saw him fumble away a tournament win.
On October 29 2011 17:39 Archerylady wrote: I don't care about Brood War but I feel sorry for these pros being forced to play SC2, an inferior game. Before I believed that SC2 had the potential to be a better game than BW, but after Blizzcon I have lost hope. Blizzard don't have the balls to do what's necessary to make SC2 a great game.
Although for KeSPA to do this in the first place the BW situation must've been dire, so I suppose the pros lose either way.
What exactly was the bad thing that happend at Blizzcon? You had a great GSL finals and a very good tournament by Blizzard (granted broadcasting choices were a little bad but still) with a great finals. The only bad thing that can really be said about that weakend is that if you were a Nestea fan you saw him fumble away a tournament win.
He's probably talking about the proposed new units coming with HotS.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand I love BW and have watched/played it since 2006, there's so many awesome memories. And on the other I also love sc2, more so than BW these days. I only pretty much watch JD games in BW now, or if there is a TBLS playing against each other.
I watch alot of sc2 however, GSL, MLG, DH, IPL etc. I would really love to see JD/Flash/Bisu/Stork make a switch... But i'm not sure if I wanna see BW go out just yet(JD needs 7 SL wins before it happens! :p)
On October 29 2011 17:07 roymarthyup wrote: [Big wall of text about army control being a very important differentiating factor in SC2 to determine skill]
This guy speaks truth. They're different games and we can't say for a fact that BW>SC2. And they both require a very high amount of skill and decision making. Why can't we all just let's see how this unfolds instead of having pages of arguments which bring us nowhere?
What he fails to bring up is the damage and tankability scaling that occurs with deathballs vs non-deathballed units. When people start declumping their armies, we will FINALLY be able to fairly judge whether splitting armies into smaller control groups is worth more effective HP and DPS than smashing through like a cannonball. After all, most SC2 matches have not really gotten to the point of showing non-ball engagements vs balls and non-balls vs non-balls.
On October 29 2011 17:07 roymarthyup wrote: [Big wall of text about army control being a very important differentiating factor in SC2 to determine skill]
This guy speaks truth. They're different games and we can't say for a fact that BW>SC2. And they both require a very high amount of skill and decision making. Why can't we all just let's see how this unfolds instead of having pages of arguments which bring us nowhere?
What he fails to bring up is the damage and tankability scaling that occurs with deathballs vs non-deathballed units. When people start declumping their armies, we will FINALLY be able to fairly judge whether splitting armies into smaller control groups is worth more effective HP and DPS than smashing through like a cannonball. After all, most SC2 matches have not really gotten to the point of showing non-ball engagements vs balls and non-balls vs non-balls.
Footnote: LOL BALLS
Erm, it's pretty much a given that the more spread out your army is, the better your army will be in terms of DPS and HP. The concave always beats the convex. That's why you always see players spreading their armies before engaging and in micro-based custom games. At the moment though, we still have yet to see the limits of the spreading ability. One can only imagine the higher your APM the better you'll be able to spread your army.
On October 29 2011 17:07 roymarthyup wrote: [Big wall of text about army control being a very important differentiating factor in SC2 to determine skill]
This guy speaks truth. They're different games and we can't say for a fact that BW>SC2. And they both require a very high amount of skill and decision making. Why can't we all just let's see how this unfolds instead of having pages of arguments which bring us nowhere?
What he fails to bring up is the damage and tankability scaling that occurs with deathballs vs non-deathballed units. When people start declumping their armies, we will FINALLY be able to fairly judge whether splitting armies into smaller control groups is worth more effective HP and DPS than smashing through like a cannonball. After all, most SC2 matches have not really gotten to the point of showing non-ball engagements vs balls and non-balls vs non-balls.
Footnote: LOL BALLS
I would say that nearly all match-ups have actually reached the point of non-balls at the highest level of play.
TvT: No comment necessary. Tanks/drops/airplay/whatever. No clump-fighting here, no sirree. TvP: Depends on the styles. Terran dictates this - if T goes for drop strategy, there is little clump fighting. Otherwise, maybe. TvZ: Very rarely clump vs clump. ZvT revolves around counters, flanking etc. TvZ revolves around positioning/drops. ZvZ: Pfft. Not really. ZvP: Depends on style. New-age PvZ uses Prism drops mostly, and old school PvZ uses timing attacks and the deathball. PvP: If you reach Colossi, then yes, otherwise no way.
The only one which really often becomes ball vs ball is PvZ.
EPT
