Flash has a higher winrate by about 4%. The only significant difference between the two is Flash's reign has been much longer - only time will tell if MVP persists.
The argument that you can't dominate as hard in sc2 as people did in BW is basically decided by this simple comparison. We could also look at some other statistics - Inca's PvP, Nestea's ZvZ etc. But the point is made - it is very possible in SC2 to absolutely dominate your opponents.
The argument that you can dominate as hard in sc2 is further strengthened by the elephant in the room. If what we're seeing now is a collection of bench warmers and meh A-teamers, then when the gods of BW switch, they'll dominate so fuuuuucking hard.
[QUOTE]On January 01 2012 08:12 Shiori wrote: [QUOTE]On January 01 2012 08:04 Oreo7 wrote: [QUOTE]On January 01 2012 07:53 Shiori wrote: Totally agreed with Day9. All you need to do is consider how much less rewarding micro is in this game by looking at player skill differences. Take MKP. I don't know about you, but some high skilled NA/EU GM could probably beat him 2-3/10 games reliably. Compare Brood War. An A- player would be lucky to take ONE game in a hundred off of Flash. Why? Because APM means so much more in that game. Training yourself to play at 700 APM affects every stage of the game; not just splitting against banelings.[/QUOTE] To some extent, this is due to the youngness of Sc2, but it was clear from the outset in BW that micro = huge benefits. Every. Single. Engagement. Compare Sc2: it ultimately doesn't matter if you play with the best control in the world, Marauders are gonna roll Stalkers, and so on. That's why Sc2 is becoming so focused on opening properly and trying to scout so much that you don't get hard countered blindly. That shouldn't be part of this game. You know what's frustrating? When you're completely aware of how you want a battle to play out, you should be able to make things work with virtually any units given some threshold of micro. You CANT do this in Sc2 right now, or at least not very often. There's some really nice mechanics: blink micro, marine splitting, warp prism HTs, etc. But in 9/10 scenarios, these are either not influential enough to help you come back from a weak scenario or completely unnecessary because the game is a walkover anyway.[/QUOTE]
Maybe my lack of knowledge about BW is showing, but can't you get absolutely build order countered there too? I think I saw Fantasy getting allinned by some KT zerg in the PL finals and the z just left as soon as a Valkyrie popped out. Some things just fucking kill you.
Also I'd advise you to watch, for example, Sase's stream. If you think people don't make units count, holy shit you're in for a surprise.
On January 01 2012 06:04 Gl!tch wrote: No this isn't a conversation about stratagy. I recently watched one of Day[9]'s "musings" video's and thought that the topic could be further discussed. In the video http://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-s-musings-game-design-baseballs-vs-frisbees-5837982#disqus_thread Sean talks about game design, and more specificaly the skill ceiling and the optimization of units that existed in Broodwar, and have been toned down alot in Starcraft 2.
I disagreed, somewhat, with what Sean said.
To start, and this was brought up in the video already, the game is young. In Broodwar, the pro's had years to develop little tricks that would increase the value of their units. Starcraft 2 hasn't had nearly this amount of time, so it's silly to assume that everything has been discovered and used.
But this argument doesn't lead to any discussion, nor does it alleviate the issue that Sean brought up, which is that skilled players cant seem to get much more out of their units than mediocre players.
But I thought otherwise, skilled players can still get alot more out of their units than your average gamer, but it doesn't work the same as it did in Broodwar.
Take for example, in Broodwar, clustering your muta's. Doing so well, and then microing them to 1 shot units 1 by 1, and take minimal damage, increased the value of all your muta's. A good macroing player kept track of his workers, which didn't auto mine back then. Reavers in shuttles could be game changing, and flanking manuvers were used more often, and with greater success, partly due to the 12 unit selection cap.
But in Starcraft 2, those tricks don't exist, many are now gone because they were made automatic (mining and mass selection). But I would still argue that units can be made far more valuble in the hands of certain players.
Now take an example from Starcraft 2. A protoss player has his "deathball" AOE army and his terran opponent has his medivac bioball army. Ignore the battle, focus on the units. I'll go from the protoss point of view: Zealots tank, blink stalkers snipe medivacs, sentry's FF his army, Psi storms go off, colossus... just a-move most of the time. Each unit has a role in that battle, and if they complete that role then they have made up for their cost and have been used effectively.
But what if the protoss player wanted to get more out of his units? I would suggest that this is entirely possible, simply by removing them from battle. Lets say the same battle occured, but with 6 less zealots. Instead, a warp prism droped 4 zealots in the Terrans newly saturated third base during the battle. Those 4 zealots are worth more to the protoss now than the original 6 in the battle. Alot more, I would argue.
As for the discussion, try to come up with ways to get more out of a unit. Preferably not along the lines of "well, I will stutter step my marines". Think about compositions that would get more out of certain units that support eachother, think about positioning, flanks, multi-pronged attacks, timing, the surprise factor of a hidden tech path. Get more out of your units.
Apologies if poorly written and or too long.
I think your missing the point he was making. Puling zealots out and dropping purely a decision that is made. "I am going to multi prong harass" is simply a DECISION.
A simple example of what he means is for instance in zvz if one player a-moves lings and banes while the other player target fires baneling with lings and sends single banleing off to get kill, send 2 banes into a group of 3 or more to get an efficient trade. Both players are "Attacking" but one player is using micro to get way more out of their units.
This is why i love zvz ling bling wars, you can open 14/14 and never lose to inferior players simply because your micro is way better than theirs.
Similarly, if you watch MC force-fielding it is terrifying. His game in the TSL vs ies.Ciarra was crazy as he was down 30-40 supply vs roach hydra and his boss toss forcefields allowed him to kill an army most protoss players wouldnt.
Further more, if you watch top terrans vs zerg you see huge amounts of banelings rolling in and somehow they hold? Target firing banes with tanks, targeting the center of a ling clump, splitting are all ways to use micro to get the most out of your units.
And just think about a pro's burrowed banelings vs some random ladder dude...
He is not arguing that these methods dont exist in SC2, just that they are more important as well as appear more in BW than SC2. For example, the difference between idras muta micro and a lower tier pro isnt that significant. The difference is idra macro like a boss while he micros.
I believe more and more techniques will arise as the game progresses however there are alot of units in the game that just require herp derping (roaches, colossi, marauders, thors, corruptors come to mind for a short list) as well as early game sentries FF and infestors fungal removing any ability for your OPPONENT to micro.
My main issue is with the ease of using spellcasters due to smart cast. + Show Spoiler +
blanket storming/fungling/EMPing an entire army is not that mechanically hard. all you have to do is hold the spell key and click. Compared to having to individually select casters + target i am not surprised EVERY SINGLE CASTER HAS BEEN NERFED AS PLAYERS GET BETTER because of the ease + unit clumping. However i think this is a moot point as they are different games its not quite as applicable, without smartcasting casters would need to be buffed so its less important to me
I do agree that the game is young however but there are alot of timing attacks that only require following a build order to X minutes and attacking that can net wins vs far superior players due to the simplicity of the game engine.
TLDR: I think your missing the point but at the same time i didnt play brood war alot so i cannot make direct comparisons to the game + SC2 is young and more techniques will arise for micro.
On January 01 2012 07:53 Shiori wrote: Totally agreed with Day9. All you need to do is consider how much less rewarding micro is in this game by looking at player skill differences. Take MKP. I don't know about you, but some high skilled NA/EU GM could probably beat him 2-3/10 games reliably. Compare Brood War. An A- player would be lucky to take ONE game in a hundred off of Flash. Why? Because APM means so much more in that game. Training yourself to play at 700 APM affects every stage of the game; not just splitting against banelings.
I'm not even sure if this is a serious post but there's a lot more to being a top player in BW than APM.
there have been lots of tricks in sc2 which have been discovered, however blizz just removed them when people started to bitch cos they were "bugs"... tricks like the mineral booster thing, voidray fazing and the old archon toilet(yea that was probably imba) to name a few off the top of my head. even now people are still asking for the removal of the archon toilet right now
On January 01 2012 07:53 Shiori wrote: Totally agreed with Day9. All you need to do is consider how much less rewarding micro is in this game by looking at player skill differences. Take MKP. I don't know about you, but some high skilled NA/EU GM could probably beat him 2-3/10 games reliably. Compare Brood War. An A- player would be lucky to take ONE game in a hundred off of Flash. Why? Because APM means so much more in that game. Training yourself to play at 700 APM affects every stage of the game; not just splitting against banelings.
I'm not even sure if this is a serious post but there's a lot more to being a top player in BW than APM.
I'm aware of that, but APM is one of the most relevant ways in which Sc2 differs from BW.
On January 01 2012 06:28 Ares[Effort] wrote: 100% agreed with Day[9]
Why? How can you counter argue the OPs points?
By agreeing with Day[9]. The OP didn't "counter" Day[9]'s points - it is a completely subjective notion anyway, so step-by-step points would be impossible - but gave a differing opinion. Ares didn't have to counter argue, he just had to agree more with Day[9] than the OP.
To me Day9's argument is sort of silly. SC2 is in its infancy. Like it or not SC2 is in its infancy.
Just because we have people coming over from broodwar doesn't mean they're just all automatically optimizing their play to broodwar levels with their units, for two reasons: 1. they dont HAVE TO. 2. The game is new as shit. It's silly to be making this argument this early in general. ----- What sean's argument also fails to mention is that when he started playing broodwar he was actually throwing a rock around, if we want to use his metaphor. he threw his rock and threw his rock and threw his rock and it got sort of round after a while and like a ball. but eventually it started getting more difficult because the obstacles evolved, and he got frustrated and threw his rock and threw his rock and wore it down so it was kind of shaped like a football and he could then throw it straight, OR he could throw it and make it bounce. but again eventually as things got more difficult and the objects got more complex the football didn't work anymore, until he got so frustrated one day he BASHED THE ROCK AGAINST HIS HEAD AND SPLIT IT AND PASSED OUT. when he woke up he found his rock broken into little pieces, with one big disk shape. he loved his disk shape though, because he started to find that he could throw it like a ball still, or a football, or if he caught the wind right he could do something crazy like throw it like a frisbee. through the magic of nostalgia (and maybe hitting himself in the head with a rock over and over) decided he ALWAYS had a frisbee.
I'm not saying that SC2 has broodwar level abilities of micro, but what I am saying is it's a stupid argument to make when you're comparing something you've loved for a long time and have done for a LONG time with something that's NEW that frankly, no one is particularly good at yet, and it's REALLY premature to be making it at all.
The reason why you don't see a huge amounts of flanks and surrounds in SC2 is simply because it really isn't worth the advantage you get for the risk of having half of your army annihilated by a mistake. In BW surrounds were so so much better than their sc2 equivalents because if you do a head on engagement half of your units are probably going to bug out and be useless. I think that the 'stupidness' of the BW A.I. led to a lot of interesting things that you must do to get the most out of your units, and in sc2 since everything is so smart it doesn't really matter and its better and safer 95% of the time to just go for a straight up engagement. Another thing that adds to this is since units are less likely to be spread out in SC2 you don't get that much extra surface area as you would in a BW engagement.
On January 01 2012 06:28 Ares[Effort] wrote: 100% agreed with Day[9]
Why? How can you counter argue the OPs points?
It's not up for discussion whether or not there is as high a skill ceiling in SC2 as there is in BW. It simply isn't. Day9 is not wrong in any way for saying such. What is up for discussion is whether or not some units are not being used to their fullest.
For instance, flanks. In SC2, the AI is FAR better. Now I'm not saying this is better or worse -- but think about it. In BW, if you ran a zergling into a tank line, all 40 tanks would shoot. Now if you do it, only 1-2 tanks will shoot -- only what is needed is shot in this game. So while flanks do have clear purposes, it's extremely diminished with greater AI since you can't "fake out" the AI. You can't run in an army from the front, and then one from the back and have it done to the same effect as in BW simply because of the improved AI.
On January 01 2012 06:28 Ares[Effort] wrote: 100% agreed with Day[9]
Why? How can you counter argue the OPs points?
It's not up for discussion whether or not there is as high a skill ceiling in SC2 as there is in BW. It simply isn't. Day9 is not wrong in any way for saying such. What is up for discussion is whether or not some units are not being used to their fullest.
For instance, flanks. In SC2, the AI is FAR better. Now I'm not saying this is better or worse -- but think about it. In BW, if you ran a zergling into a tank line, all 40 tanks would shoot. Now if you do it, only 1-2 tanks will shoot -- only what is needed is shot in this game. So while flanks do have clear purposes, it's extremely diminished with greater AI since you can't "fake out" the AI. You can't run in an army from the front, and then one from the back and have it done to the same effect as in BW simply because of the improved AI.
I won't argue the BW skill scene isn't higher than sc2's, but I think both are so high it doesn't matter.
On January 01 2012 08:46 Angel_ wrote: To me Day9's argument is sort of silly. SC2 is in its infancy. Like it or not SC2 is in its infancy.
Just because we have people coming over from broodwar doesn't mean they're just all automatically optimizing their play to broodwar levels with their units, for two reasons: 1. they dont HAVE TO. 2. The game is new as shit. It's silly to be making this argument this early in general. ----- What sean's argument also fails to mention is that when he started playing broodwar he was actually throwing a rock around, if we want to use his metaphor. he threw his rock and threw his rock and threw his rock and it got sort of round after a while and like a ball. but eventually it started getting more difficult because the obstacles evolved, and he got frustrated and threw his rock and threw his rock and wore it down so it was kind of shaped like a football and he could then throw it straight, OR he could throw it and make it bounce. but again eventually as things got more difficult and the objects got more complex the football didn't work anymore, until he got so frustrated one day he BASHED THE ROCK AGAINST HIS HEAD AND SPLIT IT AND PASSED OUT. when he woke up he found his rock broken into little pieces, with one big disk shape. he loved his disk shape though, because he started to find that he could throw it like a ball still, or a football, or if he caught the wind right he could do something crazy like throw it like a frisbee. through the magic of nostalgia (and maybe hitting himself in the head with a rock over and over) decided he ALWAYS had a frisbee.
I'm not saying that SC2 has broodwar level abilities of micro, but what I am saying is it's a stupid argument to make when you're comparing something you've loved for a long time and have done for a LONG time with something that's NEW that frankly, no one is particularly good at yet, and it's REALLY premature to be making it at all.
o_O wtf
And SC2 isn't new. It's been out for almost two years (if you count the beta)
On January 01 2012 06:28 Ares[Effort] wrote: 100% agreed with Day[9]
agree 100% with day9 as well. it's just obvious with how the game is designed as it stands. it takes most of the things that seperated players (keeping track of workers, etc) out of the game.
On January 01 2012 06:52 Xlancer wrote: I know I get way more out of my roaches than the average play just from doing burrow micro on hurt roaches. Usually it causes a rage quit from the other player
EDIT: Also I wouldn't say that sc2 has a lower skill ceiling just because the sc2 UI makes it easier to perform the same actions that only pros could do in sc1. At the very least the ceiling would be equal because pros can still do those same actions in sc2, but I would say that sc2 has a much higher potential ceiling because of how much higher the sc2 UI raised baseline skill level.
I don't think you understand the term "skill ceiling". What SC2 raised is skill floor (what you said), which has a priori nothing to do with skill ceiling.
On January 01 2012 08:46 Angel_ wrote: To me Day9's argument is sort of silly. SC2 is in its infancy. Like it or not SC2 is in its infancy.
Just because we have people coming over from broodwar doesn't mean they're just all automatically optimizing their play to broodwar levels with their units, for two reasons: 1. they dont HAVE TO. 2. The game is new as shit. It's silly to be making this argument this early in general. ----- What sean's argument also fails to mention is that when he started playing broodwar he was actually throwing a rock around, if we want to use his metaphor. he threw his rock and threw his rock and threw his rock and it got sort of round after a while and like a ball. but eventually it started getting more difficult because the obstacles evolved, and he got frustrated and threw his rock and threw his rock and wore it down so it was kind of shaped like a football and he could then throw it straight, OR he could throw it and make it bounce. but again eventually as things got more difficult and the objects got more complex the football didn't work anymore, until he got so frustrated one day he BASHED THE ROCK AGAINST HIS HEAD AND SPLIT IT AND PASSED OUT. when he woke up he found his rock broken into little pieces, with one big disk shape. he loved his disk shape though, because he started to find that he could throw it like a ball still, or a football, or if he caught the wind right he could do something crazy like throw it like a frisbee. through the magic of nostalgia (and maybe hitting himself in the head with a rock over and over) decided he ALWAYS had a frisbee.
I'm not saying that SC2 has broodwar level abilities of micro, but what I am saying is it's a stupid argument to make when you're comparing something you've loved for a long time and have done for a LONG time with something that's NEW that frankly, no one is particularly good at yet, and it's REALLY premature to be making it at all.
o_O wtf
And SC2 isn't new. It's been out for almost two years (if you count the beta)
i do count the beta, and compared to brood war, it's a newborn.
On January 01 2012 08:46 Angel_ wrote: To me Day9's argument is sort of silly. SC2 is in its infancy. Like it or not SC2 is in its infancy.
Just because we have people coming over from broodwar doesn't mean they're just all automatically optimizing their play to broodwar levels with their units, for two reasons: 1. they dont HAVE TO. 2. The game is new as shit. It's silly to be making this argument this early in general. ----- What sean's argument also fails to mention is that when he started playing broodwar he was actually throwing a rock around, if we want to use his metaphor. he threw his rock and threw his rock and threw his rock and it got sort of round after a while and like a ball. but eventually it started getting more difficult because the obstacles evolved, and he got frustrated and threw his rock and threw his rock and wore it down so it was kind of shaped like a football and he could then throw it straight, OR he could throw it and make it bounce. but again eventually as things got more difficult and the objects got more complex the football didn't work anymore, until he got so frustrated one day he BASHED THE ROCK AGAINST HIS HEAD AND SPLIT IT AND PASSED OUT. when he woke up he found his rock broken into little pieces, with one big disk shape. he loved his disk shape though, because he started to find that he could throw it like a ball still, or a football, or if he caught the wind right he could do something crazy like throw it like a frisbee. through the magic of nostalgia (and maybe hitting himself in the head with a rock over and over) decided he ALWAYS had a frisbee.
I'm not saying that SC2 has broodwar level abilities of micro, but what I am saying is it's a stupid argument to make when you're comparing something you've loved for a long time and have done for a LONG time with something that's NEW that frankly, no one is particularly good at yet, and it's REALLY premature to be making it at all.
o_O wtf
And SC2 isn't new. It's been out for almost two years (if you count the beta)
i do count the beta, and compared to brood war, it's a newborn.
Yeah, but you need to understand that SC1 defined RTS. BOs barely existed when BW came out. We've grown since then. Sc2 started off at a far higher skill than Sc1 did, mostly because people had played RTS's competitively before and understood what builds and timings and macro and micro were. The problem is that this eliminates some of the supposed infancy syndrome you're talking about. If you're expecting us to look back in a year and say "man, BL/infestor was actually such a weak comp," you are KIDDING yourself. When Sc1/BW came out, things like abusing maps (island maps) or doing air rushes and so on were the norm. It's like Bronze was the norm, because nobody was better than Bronze.
Can you seriously tell me with a straight face that the pro's of the first months of BETA were anywhere near the current Bronze/Silver leagues? Not a chance. Hell, mostly of them would still probably easily be diamond, and anyone from BW would be high masters.
Can someone link VODS of BW games where a significantly weaker army won the battle thorough sheer micro? I'd be very interested in seeing that. (Honest request.)
I think many people just don't understand that SC2 did not start from point 0 like SC/BW. There were proteams/houses nearly from the very beginning, which was not the case for bw. In BW teams had to win in order to stay active and to be able to pay the bills for the teamhouse and food/water. There were no big sponsors and no big audience to support those guys, who basicly sacrificed their livelihood and future for that game. No big media support, no mass replays, no vods. We have all those things since beta for SC2. We know what Macro and Micro. Those were things that evolved with BW and were not something anyone would know back then, but we knew it from the beginning.
On January 01 2012 09:13 AndAgain wrote: Can someone link VODS of BW games where a significantly weaker army won the battle thorough sheer micro? I'd be very interested in seeing that. (Honest request.)
would come to my mind (just saw it a day ago) Dragoons vs Zealots ~ Reach doesn't lose one single dragoon in that fight.
EPT
