|
On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote:No, I won't make it simpler. All you BW guys do is argue that the game is too simple and when I give you a complex argument back, I should keep it simpler... That's exactly why you don't see the beauty of SC2. You keep it simple in your head when it really isn't. Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote:
I could also tell you: In BW siege tanks are too good and micro reducing.
Confirmed for just not getting it. In your mind, it seems, controlling space and reducing micro are the same thing. This is entirely false. In BW specifically, it's more like the opposite -- units which control space do not reduce the other player's ability to micro, but oftentimes they increase the need for the other player to micro.
In general, when you post any kind of comparison to Brood War, you confuse the two. From earlier,
On January 14 2012 04:52 Big J wrote:
Furthermore things like Siege Tanks, Lurkers and dark swarm could be regarded as such things as well. They limit your ability to micro, because they limit the area in which micro can take place. But that again is also an interesting aspect of such spells.
In the Brood War cases, you're more than welcome to run your units into siege lines or burrowed lurkers. You can choose to fight under dark swarm. You can also choose not to do that, and choose to disengage instead. Depending on the circumstances, any of these things can be beneficial. Because of the design of these units and their abilities, interesting gameplay emerged. As an example you've already acknowledged, tanks in siege mode do extreme damage to any enemy target in range, but they overkill and splash each other, so zealot bombing came about. Similarly, lurkers do extreme damage in a line, but if they aren't being babysat then their attacks can be controlled away from a main force by an attacking player using a "tanky" unit -- think of an M&M force using 1 D-matrixed marine to draw lurker attacks to push up a ramp. Even more interesting is that the lurker's attack can be dodged. And dark swarm...it's absurd that you even added dark swarm as a micro-reducing ability, as it practically exemplifies micro-increasing abilities, sorry.
Notice that, in all of the above situations, neither player is actually helpless to control their units because of the other player's actions. Contrast this with SC2 for yourself.
You say others can't see the "beauty" of SC2, but -- assuming you haven't -- maybe you should try BW yourself, see what all the fuss is about?
|
On January 14 2012 23:02 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote:No, I won't make it simpler. All you BW guys do is argue that the game is too simple and when I give you a complex argument back, I should keep it simpler... That's exactly why you don't see the beauty of SC2. You keep it simple in your head when it really isn't. On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote:
I could also tell you: In BW siege tanks are too good and micro reducing. Confirmed for just not getting it. In your mind, it seems, controlling space and reducing micro are the same thing. This is entirely false. In BW specifically, it's more like the opposite -- units which control space do not reduce the other player's ability to micro, but oftentimes they increase the need for the other player to micro.
yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to get to. Maybe didn't make it clear enough as it has been a long multiple day discussion (and well you obviously did cut the other parts of those discussions and I'm not gonna look through everything right now to quote myself if I can write it once again maybe more clearly as it seems like I didn't).
Just like siege tanks, Infestors with fungal force your opponent to micro harder against them. They have to be pre split and continously split their units during the battle. They have to be more careful where to engage. They have to "snipe", actually snipe or EMP the infestors. Infestors are a form of zone control unit. They might be weaker in that point that siege tanks and easier to deploy offensivly, still I fail to see how engaging Infestors is less micro intense than engaging an opponent who does not have them. BEFORE the fungal growth hits you, you will have to micro way more against an Infestor player, just like you have to micro more against siege tanks BEFORE your units die. In my eyes it is pretty much the same concept when talking about marines vs Infestors or marines vs Siege Tanks. True Infestors don't need to siege. They also do less damage and have less range and are therefore pretty hard to handle themselves.
That's what I was trying to get. Just because something prevents micro when used efficiently, doesn't mean that the overall micro is not being increased by it. Judging from all the micro reducing abilities and units in SC2, BW and WC3 (in order of the amount of knowledge I have about those games), I would even say that the rule is that such units usually increase the micro that is needed when engaging them. Might not be true for everything (FFs in my eyes are not such a thing, but even that might be just my biased zerg views).
Even more so, the Mothership + blink + colossus + HT vs Corruptor/Infestor/Broodlord + support army battles that are right now the usual lategame in ZvP are some of the most micro intense situations I have yet seen in SC2 BECAUSE of Vortex.
On January 14 2012 23:02 MinusPlus wrote:In general, when you post any kind of comparison to Brood War, you confuse the two. From earlier, Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 04:52 Big J wrote:
Furthermore things like Siege Tanks, Lurkers and dark swarm could be regarded as such things as well. They limit your ability to micro, because they limit the area in which micro can take place. But that again is also an interesting aspect of such spells.
In the Brood War cases, you're more than welcome to run your units into siege lines or burrowed lurkers. You can choose to fight under dark swarm. You can also choose not to do that, and choose to disengage instead. Depending on the circumstances, any of these things can be beneficial. Because of the design of these units and their abilities, interesting gameplay emerged. As an example you've already acknowledged, tanks in siege mode do extreme damage to any enemy target in range, but they overkill and splash each other, so zealot bombing came about. Similarly, lurkers do extreme damage in a line, but if they aren't being babysat then their attacks can be controlled away from a main force by an attacking player using a "tanky" unit -- think of an M&M force using 1 D-matrixed marine to draw lurker attacks to push up a ramp. Even more interesting is that the lurker's attack can be dodged. And dark swarm...it's absurd that you even added dark swarm as a micro-reducing ability, as it practically exemplifies micro-increasing abilities, sorry. Notice that, in all of the above situations, neither player is actually helpless to control their units because of the other player's actions. Contrast this with SC2 for yourself. You say others can't see the "beauty" of SC2, but -- assuming you haven't -- maybe you should try BW yourself, see what all the fuss is about?
yeah you can also choose to throw infested terrans at siege lines, charge in with flanks and countersplit banelings to prevent siege damage and keep them efficient against splitting marines, while your mutalisks try to snipe unprotected tanks or magic box thors and zerglings try to surround...
And you know how terrans play vs infestors these days? pre split. Always presplit. Stim very small groups forward, to snipe infestors. Leapfrog tanks and keep them split and well positioned. And you know why? Because you need to be more careful and more micro intense when engaging those.
|
sry big j but you obviously never played bw at a competetive level
|
On January 14 2012 23:31 TaShadan wrote:
sry big j but you obviously never played bw at a competetive level
I'm wondering if he ever played BW at all....
|
Personally I notice the ball vs ball trend is starting to go away except in TvP, at the highest level of competition.
Because for some race you're just not going to beat their "ball", or can possibly reach the optimal composition anytime faster in any ZvX games. You usually have to split up his attention and multi-attack, such in TvZ, PvZ, and TvT. ZvZ pre-roach have alot of ling/bling dynamics.
When I say highest level of play, I mean only code S level of play. It seems most foreigners are still stuck in ball vs ball mentality and its why they aren't doing so well.
|
On January 14 2012 21:45 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 21:29 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 21:25 R3demption wrote:
My complaint on concussive shell:
(From Liquidpedia) "Micro is the ability to control your units individually...The general theory of micro is to keep as many units alive as possible. For example it is better to have four half-dead Dragoons after a battle, rather than to have two Dragoons at full health and two dead ones."
I cannot do this in SC 2 because my Stalkers, once hit by concussive shell, become too slow to micro back and save. until you have blink. That's why progamers these days get blink before charge in TvP, because then they can still poke around with stalkers against bio then. It's one of the things that just had to be developed, but a lot of people in the community still don't get that this is the way the game is being played now, and not the combat focused way they in their low leagues play. It's one of those interesting timing dynamics like banelings vs marines, banelings vs stim marines and speedbanelings vs stim marines. They are differently useful against each other at different timings/tech stages. Ugh.. So many make this arguement. Just take casting abilities out of the equation people! Keep it simpler. What if its too early for Blink and he has Conc shell (which is entirely possible). I have Stalkers, what can I do now with my Stalkers to increase my chances of winning an engagement with Marauders? Step 1: Attack move. The pathing of the game forms a natural concave with out any real input from me. Step 2??? What can I do now!? My entire life depends on this one engagement, I have the opportunity cost to use up all right now to help try and save me! Well, I cant really do nothing but sit back and watch really... Not with micro reducing conc shell.
OMG FINE! remove conc shells. But its not fair to just nerf marauders so they should get a buff in some other area. Im thinking they should do 15 damage to zealots instead of 10. I would give up conc shells for that and now you can micro your stalkers hearts out
|
On January 14 2012 08:39 Falling wrote:
Continued discussion on Storm's and Smartcasting for newbies vs pro's+ Show Spoiler +
Blizzard specifically mentioned they wanted even low level players to be able to do crazy things and feel epic, hence easy to learn, hard to master. So I think that's partly the motivation for smartcasting. It's annoying as a newbie player to have all your high templars storm the same spot when you select storm as a group. So smart cast seems like a good fix, so that even if you select 50 high templars, only one will storm at a time. Cool. Newbie player can feel epic laying down a ton of storms.
Except newbie players probably aren't going to focus on spamming storms so much because of limited apm. Collosi are easier. And because of aforementioned reasons, storms don't kill very many things outright, the ability as a whole is actually not very epic.
I would argue that the BW storm is more epic, even for newbies. I recall in 07 when I first switched from Terran to Protoss playing with some of my friends vs computers. We were 3 humans vs 2 computers with my 20apm, barely surviving for 2 hours/ never leaving our base. And just defending, defending, defending our choke point. I might get 1 or 2 storm off in a wave attack. But I felt epic. Hydralisks melted, dragoons were on death's door, even tanks were horribly mauled. Muta's just barely survived and zerglings and marines melted completely. There was tremendous power in the old storm that just isn't there anymore.
And getting 1 or 2 storms off was motivation to try and get even more off because the results were so impressive. And they were so impressive because it was hard to do and units were more spread out.
So I really believe we are killing epic moments for our viewing experience with the pro's as well as killing the epic moments for the newbies when you can kill a ton of stuff with 1 or 2 storms.
One of my first reactions to things like FFs was “how the hell does it last 12 seconds?” Looking at feedback vs. EMP I dislike the idea that a ghost dies thanks to the targeting and instant casting and EMP has the possibility to negate storms completely. I guess I don’t like the idea of strong spells because it makes the game less “stable” (yet more entertaining to watch, more tension). So looking back at FFs I felt like spells could be weakened to such extent that pulling off the first EMP doesn’t mean zero energy but simply less storms and pulling off the first feedback doesn’t mean a dead ghost but less EMPs. FFs could last 3-4 seconds so that you have to keep them up, but as it’s been pointed out it’s a wrong concept altogether. All in all, this seems like a simpler solution but it would bring more ability spam and less entertainment.
The opposite route, the hard to pull off but greatly damaging solution seems like a way better idea, the issue is how to make it harder to pull off. Removing smartcasting for some of them is a good idea, but it’d have to come with unit overhaul and many other changes as it solves only a fracture of the problems. It's an interesting concept nonetheless (a UI limitation which feels less contrived and archaistic than limited unit selection).
|
On January 14 2012 23:43 iky43210 wrote:
Personally I notice the ball vs ball trend is starting to go away except in TvP, at the highest level of competition.
Because for some race you're just not going to beat their "ball", and you usually have to split up his attention and multi-attack, such in TvZ, PvZ, and TvT. ZvZ pre-roach have alot of ling/bling dynamics.
When I say highest level of play, I mean only code S level of play. It seems most foreigners are still stuck in ball vs ball mentality and its why they aren't doing so well.
This is because the only way for players to excel in this game is to multitask. Harass more spots at once. Do more attacks at once. This is because any single battle has such limited micro in it, there's just no place for players to excel past setting up a good engage, because in fight micro is so limited.
Hell, I was watching Grubby yesterday in a TvP and the only micro he really did was split up HT into random positions so they didn't all get EMP'd. And this is GRUBBY. There just isn't that much in-fight micro to do. It's all setting up engages and casting spells (which is outrageously easy to do with smartcast and unlimited unit selection).
And it's not that multitask is not interesting, because it is. However, it'd be nice if there was more than one way to show off your skill than dropping 4 places at once. You could do that in BW too, so it's not like SC2 is putting anything new on the table. All that SC2 did was remove a lot of options.
|
On January 14 2012 20:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 09:34 JieXian wrote:On January 14 2012 01:23 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 11:25 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 06:29 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 05:40 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 13 2012 04:57 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 04:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:
[quote]
Dude, SC2 started from about the point at which foreign Broodwar was at when it came out. Dude, your duding opining has nothing to do with the duding reality. because the duding reality says that there were no duding banelings, no duding warp gates, no duding reactors and a couple of other duding things in BW. So none of your BW dudes could have known a dude about the metagame, that is still heavily under developement in any SC2 matchup. btw this kind of disagrees with your OP in which you talk about how all the stuff is completly different in SC2 from BW, (which leads to nothing being figuered out). and it would be pretty poor if all the 10years of BW gameplay development had only led to one thing: 4gate. 10 years of BW led to an understanding of RTS fundamentals and mechanics that wasn't present in any game. Strategy and metagame have absolutely nothing to do with that. Also, that kind of childish mockery only makes you look ridiculous. Avoid it if you want to be taken seriously. well, but most of the mechanics are pretty broodwar specific things. And most of the "RTS"-understanding is broodwar specific. Most of the broodwar things won't help you instantly when you go to a game like World in Conflict that don't even have bases or ressources. Only after you understand the metagame. Before that all your mechanics won't make heavy tanks a solid choice against infantry. And I'm not sure if we are really there in SC2 yet. Partially of course, but there is so much basic stuff being developed. One month we see a build just turning the whole metagame upside down, next month it has been solved and we are back to the standard from before. And don't tell me you can just overcome this with basic understanding and good mechanics. If build loses to another (standard) build, then the first build is simply not viable and another build has to be developed. And before all those options have been explored, there is no way arguing that SC2 started somewhere were close to where broodwar was. There is simply no dragoon pressure, no minefields, no lurkerrushes around in SC2. There is other stuff. And right now we don't even know exactly which stuff is around. If some Terrans keep showing off that certain (many) builds in TvT can simply get destroyed by reaperrushes, then we have to question each and every of these openings. We even have to question the follow ups, because what if there was a "bigger" reaper rush that would destroy these? Not a few months ago ZvZ was considered to be a rock-scissor-paper scenario (early pool - 14/14 - 15hatch). These days we see many Zergs going back to ling/bling rushes, because they have the SC2 mechanics and the SC2 understanding to emphasize on those tiny advantages they get in army and tech. This is specific knowledge. A BW pro doesn't know this and has to experience this himself, to see why 14/14 pool can be pretty good in a lot of scenarios vs 15hatch. Furthermore I want to question this part about "understanding of RTS fundamentals". RTS games are soooo far spread: from no base management only micro games to no micro only basemanagement games from zero ressources to Idk... 10? from no hardcounter (armor type etc), to 1unit being 10.000% costefficieny against the right units from action from the first minute games to turtle wars honestly, I don't even think there is a single thing you could tell me that is an "RTS fundamental", which I can't give you a counterexample for. With mechanics it is probably different, but still I think that most of it is very game - and inside games even faction - dependent. Addressing "RTS fundamentals": It took time before people know how to manage their econ and workers. It took time before people know that they need to Maynard workers (wow what a coincidence that he played wc2 and aoe at a high level. People know that taking more bases meant less money/tech/army now more money later. People know about the tech vs money vs econ thing. People know what micro and macro is. Just a few examples of RTS fundamentals off my head. When I say people I mean waaaaaaaaay more people than in 1998 of course, because even if a few of them know something information doesn't spread fast. -) CnC 4 or World in Conflict has no workers or economy, so it's not a fundamental -) same argument, there are no workers there. Or other argument: in a game in which all your workers have a short lifetime (like mules), transfering them is probably a bad idea. Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. Now imagine a map that has no close expansions. Suddenly this fundamental becomes a game AND mapspecific feature. -) More money later: Well that's something everyone with a basic math understanding can tell you and nothing that has been learned in BW. Progamers had to learn in BW that expansions will pay off, but that is very specific knowledge. But what if you play a game without expansions? What if you play a game in which building an economy is ressource free and therefore only limited by time and clicks (kind of the situation in Empire Earth, once you had farms, workers were so cheap that building more of them didn't hurt you at all)? Other RTS games don't need to have tech at all. Or it doesn't interact with money or economy. Or just play fastest map ever in Starcraft... taking more bases doesn't make a lot of sense there. -) Macro and Micro are defined terms. People always did that since the beginning of RTS games (if the game allowed for it at least... again, tower wars has no micro management, CnC4 has no macro management). On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:
Ok I don't know for sure but, how many trend setters in SC2 are from CnC and Empire Earth where there's little correlation? The top 5 international and Korean players in SC2 are either from BW(MMA MVP Nestea), switched to BW (Beasty) to prepare themselves or are from WC3(Naniwa, Sase).
I'm limiting to trend setters because this isn't 1998 as I said, and everyone copies the top players. I welcome you to prove me wrong if there are some top players from those cnc or ee. Otherwise your long ramble about those 2 games is irrelevant.
Fastest BW is a fun mode.... still I'd assume that someone who played fastest will have a better understanding than on who didn't. Yet, if a game doesn't have either micro or macro, you'd at least learn either micro or macro, that's always better than coming in knowing nothing. Well, you were talking about RTS fundamentals. I just gave counterexamples why those aren't RTS fundamentals. Never said anything about that being related to SC2, rather just wanted to proof that different game means different stuff is efficient/possible/required. I would never disagree that SC2 isn't very closly related to SC:BW. But I disagree that therefore skills are easily transferable. F.e. if I learn something like the backspace inject methode for SC2, it is a pure SC2 skill. Similar for macroing in BW. You won't need that skill in SC2, where you can put more buildings into one Ctrl group. Or like methodes for microing dragoons, vultures or mutalisks are simply different in SC2... No discussion about top fast players (no matter which PC game they are from) being able to learn this very quickly and possibly invent new stuff themselves, but still it has to be learned from scratch. Similar for RTS knowledge: if you are good at any RTS game, you will soon understand that Starcraft 2 is a game that is about distributing ones attention on the right things at the right times. But f.e. if a crackling runby in BW is superhigh priority in ones play, in SC2 it is not, because the canons will hold unless it is a whole army of zerglings... SC2 just like BW is a game of experience. If you don't have enough of it, you can't be good. On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:
Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. errrrr are you below plat or something? Pros and D players do it all the time.... There's absolutely no reason not to, if it's safe (pros will devise a plan to make it safe to do so). I don't understand why people won't do it in SC2 if they have an empty base and they have saturated all their bases. Because a) it is a different game and therefore not efficient enough to justify for the income lost and the risk taken, or b) because people haven't figuered it out yet, the argument many "BW-elitists" (dont want to call anyone like that, because I think it is kind of rude to, but just that you know who is getting adressed by this... in the time I wrote this, I could have written something else long-windedly as well ^^) like the OP don't agree on - just re - read the full quotes. Well or c) the "elephant argument": everyone who plays SC2 is too dumb to figure. (which is actually just point b) with a different motivation to put it) All I want to say is, that no matter how much RTS or BW or whatever experience you have, you will have to learn the SC2 specific mechanics and the SC2 specific fundamentals and the SC2 specific metagame. And the later you start with that, the more you will have to learn and therefore the longer it will take you to get good. And the same is true of course for every other RTS game. Of course it will be pretty easy to dominate some CnC which is only played by a few thousand players overall, but if you want to do that in SC2 or WC3, you better train a lot of SC2 and not something else that is kind of similar. Of course effort matters. But let's take it from a different point of view to explain it better. If you play piano, you'll pick up guitar more quickly, even the trumpet, even though they have very different techniques, even if there are many non-transferable skills. Trumpets don't have chords and trumpet players will struggle with that while learning piano. It's the same will RTS, the fundamentals is similar. before CnC4 there was resource management after all. For example, there's MBS in SC2 but if you play a lot of BW you'll know all of the things Day9 preaches again and again. And let's take dissimilar games out of the arguement because my first post was talking about SC2 trends, which are mostly set by WC3 and BW players. (Maybe aoe?) It's only different at the surface. I kind of fail to see to which part of what I was saying you are responding... My post already says that the more similar the game gets, the more skill will be transferable. And of course the trends are set by ex-similar game players. How could it be different? Just because SC2 comes out, a dedicated shooter player won't just switch into RTS and a guy that doesn't like PC games won't become the biggest nerd in the world. The thing is that they still had to develop everything in SC2 from scratch on. And of course they will try to experiment with stuff that worked in other games. If I invent a teamsport that is a lot about positioning, a soccer player will surely experiment with formations if he switches to it and a american football player will try to center the game around a sort of quarterback. And then some things will work better and some things won't work at all. And then they will start developing gamespecific strategies that will probably be superior to the transfered strategies. That's how the human brain works. We can't just purely invent something, we always model things of things we already know. But the thing is: We are not at the start of SC2 anymore. If you want to play SC2 you have to learn SC2. Not BW, not WC3 and not anything else that shares any sort of fundamentals. It will help you. But it won't give you the ability to compete with specialists until you have become a specialist yourself. NesTea, Moon, MVP, Fin, Boxer, Nada, TLO... they are not good SC2 players because they played some game before that. They were when the game was young! But if they had stopped playing 5months ago or if they had just started playing, they would be pure garbage in an SC2 sense. They surely would not have to train 5months to be at the same level they are right now, because they can just copy developments from everyone else, but they still had to devote a lot of time to it and they still had to experience a lot of things themselves (like TLO had to learn the hard way against White Ra that hatch first vs FFE does not pay of at high level, no matter how many drones you pull... or he made it work now... I'm not sure. But I guess you can see what I want to say.)
Sorry I was kind of in a rush earlier and didn't state a very important point that I actualy agree with a lot of stuff you said.
Yes I agree with almost everything there. Yes, a lot of skills need to be relearnt. I've been through that. My point was, having played BW and WC3 gives a huge starting boost, which I think you already agree with, which comes back to my initial point which you replied to:
The amount of knowledge, effort and level of attention put into SC2 during it's first year is uncomparable to that of BW, and so the arguement that's being thrown everywhere comparing the first year of SC2 and the first year of SC/BW is fallacious.
then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge.
So I reread your first reply, which I kind of forgot because it was clouded by so many replies. I suppose you meant that SC2 hasn't reach a ceilling yet? I have no objections to that, and it wasn't my point. So sorry if we've been wasting each other's time.
However I agree with a lot of the OP, and the direction that Blizz seems to be taking doesn't look promising, and I actually want to stop having to prefer an old game so much more and sort of being an outcast or elitist. I'd prefer to like enjoy both games equally. It's not relevant to our discussion but I thought you might be interested.
|
On January 14 2012 23:53 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 20:10 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 09:34 JieXian wrote:On January 14 2012 01:23 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 11:25 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 06:29 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 05:40 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 13 2012 04:57 Big J wrote:
[quote]
Dude, your duding opining has nothing to do with the duding reality.
because the duding reality says that there were no duding banelings, no duding warp gates, no duding reactors and a couple of other duding things in BW. So none of your BW dudes could have known a dude about the metagame, that is still heavily under developement in any SC2 matchup.
btw this kind of disagrees with your OP in which you talk about how all the stuff is completly different in SC2 from BW, (which leads to nothing being figuered out).
and it would be pretty poor if all the 10years of BW gameplay development had only led to one thing: 4gate. 10 years of BW led to an understanding of RTS fundamentals and mechanics that wasn't present in any game. Strategy and metagame have absolutely nothing to do with that. Also, that kind of childish mockery only makes you look ridiculous. Avoid it if you want to be taken seriously. well, but most of the mechanics are pretty broodwar specific things. And most of the "RTS"-understanding is broodwar specific. Most of the broodwar things won't help you instantly when you go to a game like World in Conflict that don't even have bases or ressources. Only after you understand the metagame. Before that all your mechanics won't make heavy tanks a solid choice against infantry. And I'm not sure if we are really there in SC2 yet. Partially of course, but there is so much basic stuff being developed. One month we see a build just turning the whole metagame upside down, next month it has been solved and we are back to the standard from before. And don't tell me you can just overcome this with basic understanding and good mechanics. If build loses to another (standard) build, then the first build is simply not viable and another build has to be developed. And before all those options have been explored, there is no way arguing that SC2 started somewhere were close to where broodwar was. There is simply no dragoon pressure, no minefields, no lurkerrushes around in SC2. There is other stuff. And right now we don't even know exactly which stuff is around. If some Terrans keep showing off that certain (many) builds in TvT can simply get destroyed by reaperrushes, then we have to question each and every of these openings. We even have to question the follow ups, because what if there was a "bigger" reaper rush that would destroy these? Not a few months ago ZvZ was considered to be a rock-scissor-paper scenario (early pool - 14/14 - 15hatch). These days we see many Zergs going back to ling/bling rushes, because they have the SC2 mechanics and the SC2 understanding to emphasize on those tiny advantages they get in army and tech. This is specific knowledge. A BW pro doesn't know this and has to experience this himself, to see why 14/14 pool can be pretty good in a lot of scenarios vs 15hatch. Furthermore I want to question this part about "understanding of RTS fundamentals". RTS games are soooo far spread: from no base management only micro games to no micro only basemanagement games from zero ressources to Idk... 10? from no hardcounter (armor type etc), to 1unit being 10.000% costefficieny against the right units from action from the first minute games to turtle wars honestly, I don't even think there is a single thing you could tell me that is an "RTS fundamental", which I can't give you a counterexample for. With mechanics it is probably different, but still I think that most of it is very game - and inside games even faction - dependent. Addressing "RTS fundamentals": It took time before people know how to manage their econ and workers. It took time before people know that they need to Maynard workers (wow what a coincidence that he played wc2 and aoe at a high level. People know that taking more bases meant less money/tech/army now more money later. People know about the tech vs money vs econ thing. People know what micro and macro is. Just a few examples of RTS fundamentals off my head. When I say people I mean waaaaaaaaay more people than in 1998 of course, because even if a few of them know something information doesn't spread fast. -) CnC 4 or World in Conflict has no workers or economy, so it's not a fundamental -) same argument, there are no workers there. Or other argument: in a game in which all your workers have a short lifetime (like mules), transfering them is probably a bad idea. Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. Now imagine a map that has no close expansions. Suddenly this fundamental becomes a game AND mapspecific feature. -) More money later: Well that's something everyone with a basic math understanding can tell you and nothing that has been learned in BW. Progamers had to learn in BW that expansions will pay off, but that is very specific knowledge. But what if you play a game without expansions? What if you play a game in which building an economy is ressource free and therefore only limited by time and clicks (kind of the situation in Empire Earth, once you had farms, workers were so cheap that building more of them didn't hurt you at all)? Other RTS games don't need to have tech at all. Or it doesn't interact with money or economy. Or just play fastest map ever in Starcraft... taking more bases doesn't make a lot of sense there. -) Macro and Micro are defined terms. People always did that since the beginning of RTS games (if the game allowed for it at least... again, tower wars has no micro management, CnC4 has no macro management). On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:
Ok I don't know for sure but, how many trend setters in SC2 are from CnC and Empire Earth where there's little correlation? The top 5 international and Korean players in SC2 are either from BW(MMA MVP Nestea), switched to BW (Beasty) to prepare themselves or are from WC3(Naniwa, Sase).
I'm limiting to trend setters because this isn't 1998 as I said, and everyone copies the top players. I welcome you to prove me wrong if there are some top players from those cnc or ee. Otherwise your long ramble about those 2 games is irrelevant.
Fastest BW is a fun mode.... still I'd assume that someone who played fastest will have a better understanding than on who didn't. Yet, if a game doesn't have either micro or macro, you'd at least learn either micro or macro, that's always better than coming in knowing nothing. Well, you were talking about RTS fundamentals. I just gave counterexamples why those aren't RTS fundamentals. Never said anything about that being related to SC2, rather just wanted to proof that different game means different stuff is efficient/possible/required. I would never disagree that SC2 isn't very closly related to SC:BW. But I disagree that therefore skills are easily transferable. F.e. if I learn something like the backspace inject methode for SC2, it is a pure SC2 skill. Similar for macroing in BW. You won't need that skill in SC2, where you can put more buildings into one Ctrl group. Or like methodes for microing dragoons, vultures or mutalisks are simply different in SC2... No discussion about top fast players (no matter which PC game they are from) being able to learn this very quickly and possibly invent new stuff themselves, but still it has to be learned from scratch. Similar for RTS knowledge: if you are good at any RTS game, you will soon understand that Starcraft 2 is a game that is about distributing ones attention on the right things at the right times. But f.e. if a crackling runby in BW is superhigh priority in ones play, in SC2 it is not, because the canons will hold unless it is a whole army of zerglings... SC2 just like BW is a game of experience. If you don't have enough of it, you can't be good. On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:
Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. errrrr are you below plat or something? Pros and D players do it all the time.... There's absolutely no reason not to, if it's safe (pros will devise a plan to make it safe to do so). I don't understand why people won't do it in SC2 if they have an empty base and they have saturated all their bases. Because a) it is a different game and therefore not efficient enough to justify for the income lost and the risk taken, or b) because people haven't figuered it out yet, the argument many "BW-elitists" (dont want to call anyone like that, because I think it is kind of rude to, but just that you know who is getting adressed by this... in the time I wrote this, I could have written something else long-windedly as well ^^) like the OP don't agree on - just re - read the full quotes. Well or c) the "elephant argument": everyone who plays SC2 is too dumb to figure. (which is actually just point b) with a different motivation to put it) All I want to say is, that no matter how much RTS or BW or whatever experience you have, you will have to learn the SC2 specific mechanics and the SC2 specific fundamentals and the SC2 specific metagame. And the later you start with that, the more you will have to learn and therefore the longer it will take you to get good. And the same is true of course for every other RTS game. Of course it will be pretty easy to dominate some CnC which is only played by a few thousand players overall, but if you want to do that in SC2 or WC3, you better train a lot of SC2 and not something else that is kind of similar. Of course effort matters. But let's take it from a different point of view to explain it better. If you play piano, you'll pick up guitar more quickly, even the trumpet, even though they have very different techniques, even if there are many non-transferable skills. Trumpets don't have chords and trumpet players will struggle with that while learning piano. It's the same will RTS, the fundamentals is similar. before CnC4 there was resource management after all. For example, there's MBS in SC2 but if you play a lot of BW you'll know all of the things Day9 preaches again and again. And let's take dissimilar games out of the arguement because my first post was talking about SC2 trends, which are mostly set by WC3 and BW players. (Maybe aoe?) It's only different at the surface. I kind of fail to see to which part of what I was saying you are responding... My post already says that the more similar the game gets, the more skill will be transferable. And of course the trends are set by ex-similar game players. How could it be different? Just because SC2 comes out, a dedicated shooter player won't just switch into RTS and a guy that doesn't like PC games won't become the biggest nerd in the world. The thing is that they still had to develop everything in SC2 from scratch on. And of course they will try to experiment with stuff that worked in other games. If I invent a teamsport that is a lot about positioning, a soccer player will surely experiment with formations if he switches to it and a american football player will try to center the game around a sort of quarterback. And then some things will work better and some things won't work at all. And then they will start developing gamespecific strategies that will probably be superior to the transfered strategies. That's how the human brain works. We can't just purely invent something, we always model things of things we already know. But the thing is: We are not at the start of SC2 anymore. If you want to play SC2 you have to learn SC2. Not BW, not WC3 and not anything else that shares any sort of fundamentals. It will help you. But it won't give you the ability to compete with specialists until you have become a specialist yourself. NesTea, Moon, MVP, Fin, Boxer, Nada, TLO... they are not good SC2 players because they played some game before that. They were when the game was young! But if they had stopped playing 5months ago or if they had just started playing, they would be pure garbage in an SC2 sense. They surely would not have to train 5months to be at the same level they are right now, because they can just copy developments from everyone else, but they still had to devote a lot of time to it and they still had to experience a lot of things themselves (like TLO had to learn the hard way against White Ra that hatch first vs FFE does not pay of at high level, no matter how many drones you pull... or he made it work now... I'm not sure. But I guess you can see what I want to say.) Sorry I was kind of in a rush earlier and didn't state a very important point that I actualy agree with a lot of stuff you said. Yes I agree with almost everything there. Yes, a lot of skills need to be relearnt. I've been through that. My point was, having played BW and WC3 gives a huge starting boost, which I think you already agree with, which comes back to my initial point which you replied to: The amount of knowledge, effort and level of attention put into SC2 during it's first year is uncomparable to that of BW, and so the arguement that's being thrown everywhere comparing the first year of SC2 and the first year of SC/BW is fallacious. Show nested quote +then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge. So I reread your first reply, which I kind of forgot because it was clouded by so many replies. I suppose you meant that SC2 hasn't reach a ceilling yet? I have no objections to that, and it wasn't my point. So sorry if we've been wasting each other's time. However I agree with a lot of the OP, and the direction that Blizz seems to be taking doesn't look promising, and I actually want to stop having to prefer an old game so much more and sort of being an outcast or elitist. I'd prefer to like enjoy both games equally. It's not relevant to our discussion but I thought you might be interested.
Yeah. Like it has been pointed out, first year of SC2 =/= first your of BW from a point of how much has been developed for obvious reasons. So I just wanted to say that the skill ceiling is really far from being reached. (4th, 5th year of BW...)
Something the OP obviously disagrees with:
On January 13 2012 04:44 EternaLLegacy wrote:Dude, SC2 started from about the point at which foreign Broodwar was at when it came out.
But yeah, I really approve of you telling me that. Also I don't see this as somthing like a figth. I just want to point out why I think SC2 is a really good game, and why I disagree with the OP... Of course it will always be "only" my point of view and can't be generalized. And I also would never argue that BW doesn't take a fuckton of skill, but I just think that the human skill cap is so low, that it actually doesn't matter if you play BW or SC2. You will always be limited by yourself and not by the game IF the game gets figuered out. But I definatly SEE possibilities and approaches of gamers, that look extremly promising for a more micro and multitask intense SC2. I just do believe that macro is more important than micro if you are bad in SC2, and therefore the game is being developed from the macro side. BW on the other side was being developed from the micro side, because obviously you will just be able to win games with pure micro if your opponent is not on a micro level with you. Hopefully the outcome for both games is/will be that you need a lot of both.
|
On January 14 2012 23:51 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 23:43 iky43210 wrote:
Personally I notice the ball vs ball trend is starting to go away except in TvP, at the highest level of competition.
Because for some race you're just not going to beat their "ball", and you usually have to split up his attention and multi-attack, such in TvZ, PvZ, and TvT. ZvZ pre-roach have alot of ling/bling dynamics.
When I say highest level of play, I mean only code S level of play. It seems most foreigners are still stuck in ball vs ball mentality and its why they aren't doing so well. This is because the only way for players to excel in this game is to multitask. Harass more spots at once. Do more attacks at once. This is because any single battle has such limited micro in it, there's just no place for players to excel past setting up a good engage, because in fight micro is so limited. Hell, I was watching Grubby yesterday in a TvP and the only micro he really did was split up HT into random positions so they didn't all get EMP'd. And this is GRUBBY. There just isn't that much in-fight micro to do. It's all setting up engages and casting spells (which is outrageously easy to do with smartcast and unlimited unit selection). And it's not that multitask is not interesting, because it is. However, it'd be nice if there was more than one way to show off your skill than dropping 4 places at once. You could do that in BW too, so it's not like SC2 is putting anything new on the table. All that SC2 did was remove a lot of options.
that's not the reason at all. For a while Koreans Protoss were dropping left and right to zerg simply because they cannot get their ball up fast enough and their traditional method of hiding till 200/200 no longer works out after most zerg learn the most efficient way to get close to max up and attack.
Right now protoss are starting to come back because they start to approach PvZ similar to TvZ. Constant pressure, multi-tasks and stop zerg from power droning and expanding.
It also doesn't matter what the reason is, huge ball vs another is really starting to dim out except in TvP. It could be the meta is changing, but it is what pros are heading to at the highest level of play.
Anyway, you're discrediting the amount of micro needed in a TvP. sure, it is less intensive for the protoss side, but not so easy for Terran. You need to focus colo with vikings, kite with bio army all the while trying to catch HT with ghosts and land better EMP. This starts to get more difficult as late game protoss starts to include warp prism in their play to not only to harass but to send in HT faster for storms. Though personally I hated the TvP matchup since it is probably the most unforgiving and boring matchup where usually its one side crushing the other and one battle dictates who wins
|
On January 15 2012 00:15 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 23:53 JieXian wrote:On January 14 2012 20:10 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 09:34 JieXian wrote:On January 14 2012 01:23 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 11:25 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 06:29 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 05:40 EternaLLegacy wrote:
[quote]
10 years of BW led to an understanding of RTS fundamentals and mechanics that wasn't present in any game. Strategy and metagame have absolutely nothing to do with that. Also, that kind of childish mockery only makes you look ridiculous. Avoid it if you want to be taken seriously. well, but most of the mechanics are pretty broodwar specific things. And most of the "RTS"-understanding is broodwar specific. Most of the broodwar things won't help you instantly when you go to a game like World in Conflict that don't even have bases or ressources. Only after you understand the metagame. Before that all your mechanics won't make heavy tanks a solid choice against infantry. And I'm not sure if we are really there in SC2 yet. Partially of course, but there is so much basic stuff being developed. One month we see a build just turning the whole metagame upside down, next month it has been solved and we are back to the standard from before. And don't tell me you can just overcome this with basic understanding and good mechanics. If build loses to another (standard) build, then the first build is simply not viable and another build has to be developed. And before all those options have been explored, there is no way arguing that SC2 started somewhere were close to where broodwar was. There is simply no dragoon pressure, no minefields, no lurkerrushes around in SC2. There is other stuff. And right now we don't even know exactly which stuff is around. If some Terrans keep showing off that certain (many) builds in TvT can simply get destroyed by reaperrushes, then we have to question each and every of these openings. We even have to question the follow ups, because what if there was a "bigger" reaper rush that would destroy these? Not a few months ago ZvZ was considered to be a rock-scissor-paper scenario (early pool - 14/14 - 15hatch). These days we see many Zergs going back to ling/bling rushes, because they have the SC2 mechanics and the SC2 understanding to emphasize on those tiny advantages they get in army and tech. This is specific knowledge. A BW pro doesn't know this and has to experience this himself, to see why 14/14 pool can be pretty good in a lot of scenarios vs 15hatch. Furthermore I want to question this part about "understanding of RTS fundamentals". RTS games are soooo far spread: from no base management only micro games to no micro only basemanagement games from zero ressources to Idk... 10? from no hardcounter (armor type etc), to 1unit being 10.000% costefficieny against the right units from action from the first minute games to turtle wars honestly, I don't even think there is a single thing you could tell me that is an "RTS fundamental", which I can't give you a counterexample for. With mechanics it is probably different, but still I think that most of it is very game - and inside games even faction - dependent. Addressing "RTS fundamentals": It took time before people know how to manage their econ and workers. It took time before people know that they need to Maynard workers (wow what a coincidence that he played wc2 and aoe at a high level. People know that taking more bases meant less money/tech/army now more money later. People know about the tech vs money vs econ thing. People know what micro and macro is. Just a few examples of RTS fundamentals off my head. When I say people I mean waaaaaaaaay more people than in 1998 of course, because even if a few of them know something information doesn't spread fast. -) CnC 4 or World in Conflict has no workers or economy, so it's not a fundamental -) same argument, there are no workers there. Or other argument: in a game in which all your workers have a short lifetime (like mules), transfering them is probably a bad idea. Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. Now imagine a map that has no close expansions. Suddenly this fundamental becomes a game AND mapspecific feature. -) More money later: Well that's something everyone with a basic math understanding can tell you and nothing that has been learned in BW. Progamers had to learn in BW that expansions will pay off, but that is very specific knowledge. But what if you play a game without expansions? What if you play a game in which building an economy is ressource free and therefore only limited by time and clicks (kind of the situation in Empire Earth, once you had farms, workers were so cheap that building more of them didn't hurt you at all)? Other RTS games don't need to have tech at all. Or it doesn't interact with money or economy. Or just play fastest map ever in Starcraft... taking more bases doesn't make a lot of sense there. -) Macro and Micro are defined terms. People always did that since the beginning of RTS games (if the game allowed for it at least... again, tower wars has no micro management, CnC4 has no macro management). On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:
Ok I don't know for sure but, how many trend setters in SC2 are from CnC and Empire Earth where there's little correlation? The top 5 international and Korean players in SC2 are either from BW(MMA MVP Nestea), switched to BW (Beasty) to prepare themselves or are from WC3(Naniwa, Sase).
I'm limiting to trend setters because this isn't 1998 as I said, and everyone copies the top players. I welcome you to prove me wrong if there are some top players from those cnc or ee. Otherwise your long ramble about those 2 games is irrelevant.
Fastest BW is a fun mode.... still I'd assume that someone who played fastest will have a better understanding than on who didn't. Yet, if a game doesn't have either micro or macro, you'd at least learn either micro or macro, that's always better than coming in knowing nothing. Well, you were talking about RTS fundamentals. I just gave counterexamples why those aren't RTS fundamentals. Never said anything about that being related to SC2, rather just wanted to proof that different game means different stuff is efficient/possible/required. I would never disagree that SC2 isn't very closly related to SC:BW. But I disagree that therefore skills are easily transferable. F.e. if I learn something like the backspace inject methode for SC2, it is a pure SC2 skill. Similar for macroing in BW. You won't need that skill in SC2, where you can put more buildings into one Ctrl group. Or like methodes for microing dragoons, vultures or mutalisks are simply different in SC2... No discussion about top fast players (no matter which PC game they are from) being able to learn this very quickly and possibly invent new stuff themselves, but still it has to be learned from scratch. Similar for RTS knowledge: if you are good at any RTS game, you will soon understand that Starcraft 2 is a game that is about distributing ones attention on the right things at the right times. But f.e. if a crackling runby in BW is superhigh priority in ones play, in SC2 it is not, because the canons will hold unless it is a whole army of zerglings... SC2 just like BW is a game of experience. If you don't have enough of it, you can't be good. On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:
Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. errrrr are you below plat or something? Pros and D players do it all the time.... There's absolutely no reason not to, if it's safe (pros will devise a plan to make it safe to do so). I don't understand why people won't do it in SC2 if they have an empty base and they have saturated all their bases. Because a) it is a different game and therefore not efficient enough to justify for the income lost and the risk taken, or b) because people haven't figuered it out yet, the argument many "BW-elitists" (dont want to call anyone like that, because I think it is kind of rude to, but just that you know who is getting adressed by this... in the time I wrote this, I could have written something else long-windedly as well ^^) like the OP don't agree on - just re - read the full quotes. Well or c) the "elephant argument": everyone who plays SC2 is too dumb to figure. (which is actually just point b) with a different motivation to put it) All I want to say is, that no matter how much RTS or BW or whatever experience you have, you will have to learn the SC2 specific mechanics and the SC2 specific fundamentals and the SC2 specific metagame. And the later you start with that, the more you will have to learn and therefore the longer it will take you to get good. And the same is true of course for every other RTS game. Of course it will be pretty easy to dominate some CnC which is only played by a few thousand players overall, but if you want to do that in SC2 or WC3, you better train a lot of SC2 and not something else that is kind of similar. Of course effort matters. But let's take it from a different point of view to explain it better. If you play piano, you'll pick up guitar more quickly, even the trumpet, even though they have very different techniques, even if there are many non-transferable skills. Trumpets don't have chords and trumpet players will struggle with that while learning piano. It's the same will RTS, the fundamentals is similar. before CnC4 there was resource management after all. For example, there's MBS in SC2 but if you play a lot of BW you'll know all of the things Day9 preaches again and again. And let's take dissimilar games out of the arguement because my first post was talking about SC2 trends, which are mostly set by WC3 and BW players. (Maybe aoe?) It's only different at the surface. I kind of fail to see to which part of what I was saying you are responding... My post already says that the more similar the game gets, the more skill will be transferable. And of course the trends are set by ex-similar game players. How could it be different? Just because SC2 comes out, a dedicated shooter player won't just switch into RTS and a guy that doesn't like PC games won't become the biggest nerd in the world. The thing is that they still had to develop everything in SC2 from scratch on. And of course they will try to experiment with stuff that worked in other games. If I invent a teamsport that is a lot about positioning, a soccer player will surely experiment with formations if he switches to it and a american football player will try to center the game around a sort of quarterback. And then some things will work better and some things won't work at all. And then they will start developing gamespecific strategies that will probably be superior to the transfered strategies. That's how the human brain works. We can't just purely invent something, we always model things of things we already know. But the thing is: We are not at the start of SC2 anymore. If you want to play SC2 you have to learn SC2. Not BW, not WC3 and not anything else that shares any sort of fundamentals. It will help you. But it won't give you the ability to compete with specialists until you have become a specialist yourself. NesTea, Moon, MVP, Fin, Boxer, Nada, TLO... they are not good SC2 players because they played some game before that. They were when the game was young! But if they had stopped playing 5months ago or if they had just started playing, they would be pure garbage in an SC2 sense. They surely would not have to train 5months to be at the same level they are right now, because they can just copy developments from everyone else, but they still had to devote a lot of time to it and they still had to experience a lot of things themselves (like TLO had to learn the hard way against White Ra that hatch first vs FFE does not pay of at high level, no matter how many drones you pull... or he made it work now... I'm not sure. But I guess you can see what I want to say.) Sorry I was kind of in a rush earlier and didn't state a very important point that I actualy agree with a lot of stuff you said. Yes I agree with almost everything there. Yes, a lot of skills need to be relearnt. I've been through that. My point was, having played BW and WC3 gives a huge starting boost, which I think you already agree with, which comes back to my initial point which you replied to: The amount of knowledge, effort and level of attention put into SC2 during it's first year is uncomparable to that of BW, and so the arguement that's being thrown everywhere comparing the first year of SC2 and the first year of SC/BW is fallacious. then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge. So I reread your first reply, which I kind of forgot because it was clouded by so many replies. I suppose you meant that SC2 hasn't reach a ceilling yet? I have no objections to that, and it wasn't my point. So sorry if we've been wasting each other's time. However I agree with a lot of the OP, and the direction that Blizz seems to be taking doesn't look promising, and I actually want to stop having to prefer an old game so much more and sort of being an outcast or elitist. I'd prefer to like enjoy both games equally. It's not relevant to our discussion but I thought you might be interested. I just do believe that macro is more important than micro if you are bad in SC2, and therefore the game is being developed from the macro side. BW on the other side was being developed from the micro side, because obviously you will just be able to win games with pure micro if your opponent is not on a micro level with you. Hopefully the outcome for both games is/will be that you need a lot of both.
Both macro and micro are very important in BW, and you can totally crush someone if you are very good in either one. But BW is more of a macro than micro game when contrasting with WC3, which is very very heavily focus on intense microing. Macro gets even harder since there isn't MBS and people, even I can talk very long about important fundamentals to macroing effeciently, though much of those information is irrelavant with MBS and auto-mining.
Maybe you see a lot of BW micro because you don't play much of it to recognise it or spot it, because after all when you watch VODs without much knowledge you only see the micro.
And btw my music instruments analogy was agreeing with you. Some skills, and knowledge in music and instruments are transferable and gives a huge advantage in learning a new one, but a lot of basic things have to be practiced from scratch.
|
On January 15 2012 01:42 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 00:15 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 23:53 JieXian wrote:On January 14 2012 20:10 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 09:34 JieXian wrote:On January 14 2012 01:23 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:On January 13 2012 11:25 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 06:29 Big J wrote:
[quote]
well, but most of the mechanics are pretty broodwar specific things. And most of the "RTS"-understanding is broodwar specific.
Most of the broodwar things won't help you instantly when you go to a game like World in Conflict that don't even have bases or ressources. Only after you understand the metagame. Before that all your mechanics won't make heavy tanks a solid choice against infantry.
And I'm not sure if we are really there in SC2 yet. Partially of course, but there is so much basic stuff being developed. One month we see a build just turning the whole metagame upside down, next month it has been solved and we are back to the standard from before. And don't tell me you can just overcome this with basic understanding and good mechanics. If build loses to another (standard) build, then the first build is simply not viable and another build has to be developed. And before all those options have been explored, there is no way arguing that SC2 started somewhere were close to where broodwar was. There is simply no dragoon pressure, no minefields, no lurkerrushes around in SC2. There is other stuff. And right now we don't even know exactly which stuff is around.
If some Terrans keep showing off that certain (many) builds in TvT can simply get destroyed by reaperrushes, then we have to question each and every of these openings. We even have to question the follow ups, because what if there was a "bigger" reaper rush that would destroy these?
Not a few months ago ZvZ was considered to be a rock-scissor-paper scenario (early pool - 14/14 - 15hatch). These days we see many Zergs going back to ling/bling rushes, because they have the SC2 mechanics and the SC2 understanding to emphasize on those tiny advantages they get in army and tech. This is specific knowledge. A BW pro doesn't know this and has to experience this himself, to see why 14/14 pool can be pretty good in a lot of scenarios vs 15hatch.
Furthermore I want to question this part about "understanding of RTS fundamentals". RTS games are soooo far spread:
from no base management only micro games to no micro only basemanagement games
from zero ressources to Idk... 10?
from no hardcounter (armor type etc), to 1unit being 10.000% costefficieny against the right units
from action from the first minute games to turtle wars
honestly, I don't even think there is a single thing you could tell me that is an "RTS fundamental", which I can't give you a counterexample for. With mechanics it is probably different, but still I think that most of it is very game - and inside games even faction - dependent. Addressing "RTS fundamentals": It took time before people know how to manage their econ and workers. It took time before people know that they need to Maynard workers (wow what a coincidence that he played wc2 and aoe at a high level. People know that taking more bases meant less money/tech/army now more money later. People know about the tech vs money vs econ thing. People know what micro and macro is. Just a few examples of RTS fundamentals off my head. When I say people I mean waaaaaaaaay more people than in 1998 of course, because even if a few of them know something information doesn't spread fast. -) CnC 4 or World in Conflict has no workers or economy, so it's not a fundamental -) same argument, there are no workers there. Or other argument: in a game in which all your workers have a short lifetime (like mules), transfering them is probably a bad idea. Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. Now imagine a map that has no close expansions. Suddenly this fundamental becomes a game AND mapspecific feature. -) More money later: Well that's something everyone with a basic math understanding can tell you and nothing that has been learned in BW. Progamers had to learn in BW that expansions will pay off, but that is very specific knowledge. But what if you play a game without expansions? What if you play a game in which building an economy is ressource free and therefore only limited by time and clicks (kind of the situation in Empire Earth, once you had farms, workers were so cheap that building more of them didn't hurt you at all)? Other RTS games don't need to have tech at all. Or it doesn't interact with money or economy. Or just play fastest map ever in Starcraft... taking more bases doesn't make a lot of sense there. -) Macro and Micro are defined terms. People always did that since the beginning of RTS games (if the game allowed for it at least... again, tower wars has no micro management, CnC4 has no macro management). On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:
Ok I don't know for sure but, how many trend setters in SC2 are from CnC and Empire Earth where there's little correlation? The top 5 international and Korean players in SC2 are either from BW(MMA MVP Nestea), switched to BW (Beasty) to prepare themselves or are from WC3(Naniwa, Sase).
I'm limiting to trend setters because this isn't 1998 as I said, and everyone copies the top players. I welcome you to prove me wrong if there are some top players from those cnc or ee. Otherwise your long ramble about those 2 games is irrelevant.
Fastest BW is a fun mode.... still I'd assume that someone who played fastest will have a better understanding than on who didn't. Yet, if a game doesn't have either micro or macro, you'd at least learn either micro or macro, that's always better than coming in knowing nothing. Well, you were talking about RTS fundamentals. I just gave counterexamples why those aren't RTS fundamentals. Never said anything about that being related to SC2, rather just wanted to proof that different game means different stuff is efficient/possible/required. I would never disagree that SC2 isn't very closly related to SC:BW. But I disagree that therefore skills are easily transferable. F.e. if I learn something like the backspace inject methode for SC2, it is a pure SC2 skill. Similar for macroing in BW. You won't need that skill in SC2, where you can put more buildings into one Ctrl group. Or like methodes for microing dragoons, vultures or mutalisks are simply different in SC2... No discussion about top fast players (no matter which PC game they are from) being able to learn this very quickly and possibly invent new stuff themselves, but still it has to be learned from scratch. Similar for RTS knowledge: if you are good at any RTS game, you will soon understand that Starcraft 2 is a game that is about distributing ones attention on the right things at the right times. But f.e. if a crackling runby in BW is superhigh priority in ones play, in SC2 it is not, because the canons will hold unless it is a whole army of zerglings... SC2 just like BW is a game of experience. If you don't have enough of it, you can't be good. On January 14 2012 00:58 JieXian wrote:On January 13 2012 17:01 Big J wrote:
Also transfering workers is already a bad idea in BW, if the distance is rather big. errrrr are you below plat or something? Pros and D players do it all the time.... There's absolutely no reason not to, if it's safe (pros will devise a plan to make it safe to do so). I don't understand why people won't do it in SC2 if they have an empty base and they have saturated all their bases. Because a) it is a different game and therefore not efficient enough to justify for the income lost and the risk taken, or b) because people haven't figuered it out yet, the argument many "BW-elitists" (dont want to call anyone like that, because I think it is kind of rude to, but just that you know who is getting adressed by this... in the time I wrote this, I could have written something else long-windedly as well ^^) like the OP don't agree on - just re - read the full quotes. Well or c) the "elephant argument": everyone who plays SC2 is too dumb to figure. (which is actually just point b) with a different motivation to put it) All I want to say is, that no matter how much RTS or BW or whatever experience you have, you will have to learn the SC2 specific mechanics and the SC2 specific fundamentals and the SC2 specific metagame. And the later you start with that, the more you will have to learn and therefore the longer it will take you to get good. And the same is true of course for every other RTS game. Of course it will be pretty easy to dominate some CnC which is only played by a few thousand players overall, but if you want to do that in SC2 or WC3, you better train a lot of SC2 and not something else that is kind of similar. Of course effort matters. But let's take it from a different point of view to explain it better. If you play piano, you'll pick up guitar more quickly, even the trumpet, even though they have very different techniques, even if there are many non-transferable skills. Trumpets don't have chords and trumpet players will struggle with that while learning piano. It's the same will RTS, the fundamentals is similar. before CnC4 there was resource management after all. For example, there's MBS in SC2 but if you play a lot of BW you'll know all of the things Day9 preaches again and again. And let's take dissimilar games out of the arguement because my first post was talking about SC2 trends, which are mostly set by WC3 and BW players. (Maybe aoe?) It's only different at the surface. I kind of fail to see to which part of what I was saying you are responding... My post already says that the more similar the game gets, the more skill will be transferable. And of course the trends are set by ex-similar game players. How could it be different? Just because SC2 comes out, a dedicated shooter player won't just switch into RTS and a guy that doesn't like PC games won't become the biggest nerd in the world. The thing is that they still had to develop everything in SC2 from scratch on. And of course they will try to experiment with stuff that worked in other games. If I invent a teamsport that is a lot about positioning, a soccer player will surely experiment with formations if he switches to it and a american football player will try to center the game around a sort of quarterback. And then some things will work better and some things won't work at all. And then they will start developing gamespecific strategies that will probably be superior to the transfered strategies. That's how the human brain works. We can't just purely invent something, we always model things of things we already know. But the thing is: We are not at the start of SC2 anymore. If you want to play SC2 you have to learn SC2. Not BW, not WC3 and not anything else that shares any sort of fundamentals. It will help you. But it won't give you the ability to compete with specialists until you have become a specialist yourself. NesTea, Moon, MVP, Fin, Boxer, Nada, TLO... they are not good SC2 players because they played some game before that. They were when the game was young! But if they had stopped playing 5months ago or if they had just started playing, they would be pure garbage in an SC2 sense. They surely would not have to train 5months to be at the same level they are right now, because they can just copy developments from everyone else, but they still had to devote a lot of time to it and they still had to experience a lot of things themselves (like TLO had to learn the hard way against White Ra that hatch first vs FFE does not pay of at high level, no matter how many drones you pull... or he made it work now... I'm not sure. But I guess you can see what I want to say.) Sorry I was kind of in a rush earlier and didn't state a very important point that I actualy agree with a lot of stuff you said. Yes I agree with almost everything there. Yes, a lot of skills need to be relearnt. I've been through that. My point was, having played BW and WC3 gives a huge starting boost, which I think you already agree with, which comes back to my initial point which you replied to: The amount of knowledge, effort and level of attention put into SC2 during it's first year is uncomparable to that of BW, and so the arguement that's being thrown everywhere comparing the first year of SC2 and the first year of SC/BW is fallacious. then compare the first year of SC2 with the 3rd year of BW. with the 4th or 5th... you will still see that there was a HUGE development in BW in the following 5,6,7 years. And I mean giganticly huge. So I reread your first reply, which I kind of forgot because it was clouded by so many replies. I suppose you meant that SC2 hasn't reach a ceilling yet? I have no objections to that, and it wasn't my point. So sorry if we've been wasting each other's time. However I agree with a lot of the OP, and the direction that Blizz seems to be taking doesn't look promising, and I actually want to stop having to prefer an old game so much more and sort of being an outcast or elitist. I'd prefer to like enjoy both games equally. It's not relevant to our discussion but I thought you might be interested. I just do believe that macro is more important than micro if you are bad in SC2, and therefore the game is being developed from the macro side. BW on the other side was being developed from the micro side, because obviously you will just be able to win games with pure micro if your opponent is not on a micro level with you. Hopefully the outcome for both games is/will be that you need a lot of both. Both macro and micro are very important in BW, and you can totally crush someone if you are very good in either one. But BW is more of a macro than micro game when contrasting with WC3, which is very very heavily focus on intense microing. Macro gets even harder since there isn't MBS and people, even I can talk very long about important fundamentals to macroing effeciently, though much of those information is irrelavant with MBS and auto-mining. Maybe you see a lot of BW micro because you don't play much of it to recognise it or spot it, because after all when you watch VODs without much knowledge you only see the micro. And btw my music instruments analogy was agreeing with you. Some skills, and knowledge in music and instruments are transferable and gives a huge advantage in learning a new one, but a lot of basic things have to be practiced from scratch.
Well, I say broodwar was being developed from the micro side, because when the game wasn't figuered very well, because people started playing with 1base stuff (very little macro needed, a lot of micro needed). Eventually it ended up with both parts being developed heavily.
I think in Starcraft 2 it was kind of different (obviously 1base rushes and 2base rushes had to be figuered out). The mindset is rather that you should try to get really good at macro first, before you even try to micro a lot.
Putting this in the day9 contest of "8times more" of units in SC1 and "1.5times more" of units in SC2:
If you fight a kind of equally skilled opponent, you will have and 8:8 or 8: 7 times relation between your units in SC1 and an 1.5:1.5 or 1.5:1.4 relation in SC2. So it just makes more sense to give micro a bigger priority to learn first in SC1 and macro a bigger priority to learn first in SC1. That's why I think once the macro is really starting to settle, the micro parts will get a lot more focus (because 2:1.5 will obviously make a HUGE differnce with kind of equal, good macro!)
|
I would actually like hear what the OP has to say about the Broodlord.
|
On January 14 2012 23:43 Carmine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 21:45 R3demption wrote:On January 14 2012 21:29 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 21:25 R3demption wrote:
My complaint on concussive shell:
(From Liquidpedia) "Micro is the ability to control your units individually...The general theory of micro is to keep as many units alive as possible. For example it is better to have four half-dead Dragoons after a battle, rather than to have two Dragoons at full health and two dead ones."
I cannot do this in SC 2 because my Stalkers, once hit by concussive shell, become too slow to micro back and save. until you have blink. That's why progamers these days get blink before charge in TvP, because then they can still poke around with stalkers against bio then. It's one of the things that just had to be developed, but a lot of people in the community still don't get that this is the way the game is being played now, and not the combat focused way they in their low leagues play. It's one of those interesting timing dynamics like banelings vs marines, banelings vs stim marines and speedbanelings vs stim marines. They are differently useful against each other at different timings/tech stages. Ugh.. So many make this arguement. Just take casting abilities out of the equation people! Keep it simpler. What if its too early for Blink and he has Conc shell (which is entirely possible). I have Stalkers, what can I do now with my Stalkers to increase my chances of winning an engagement with Marauders? Step 1: Attack move. The pathing of the game forms a natural concave with out any real input from me. Step 2??? What can I do now!? My entire life depends on this one engagement, I have the opportunity cost to use up all right now to help try and save me! Well, I cant really do nothing but sit back and watch really... Not with micro reducing conc shell. OMG FINE! remove conc shells. But its not fair to just nerf marauders so they should get a buff in some other area. Im thinking they should do 15 damage to zealots instead of 10. I would give up conc shells for that and now you can micro your stalkers hearts out
This isn't a balance thread!!! Its about game design. All people are saying about the "bad" game design that exists in some SC 2 units is that it could be better. Sooo many people are getting this thread confused.
|
the game does not suffer from imbalanced, it's just boring to watch compared to BW, especcially the damn TVP
also there is a big lack of good spell, like irradiate, lockdown(wasn't too used because wasn't balanced), statis(ff isn't the same) , dark swarm, ecc... and units that require positioning(mine, lurker)
i'm not talking about bringing back these things, but just add something similar, for example, the shredder is a good idea, but need to be cheap and spammable like mines, just balance it in this way
|
On January 15 2012 02:15 Rybaia wrote:
I would actually like hear what the OP has to say about the Broodlord.
What about it? It's a pretty cool unit that has some great interactions.
|
On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 21:45 R3demption wrote:On January 14 2012 21:29 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 21:25 R3demption wrote:
My complaint on concussive shell:
(From Liquidpedia) "Micro is the ability to control your units individually...The general theory of micro is to keep as many units alive as possible. For example it is better to have four half-dead Dragoons after a battle, rather than to have two Dragoons at full health and two dead ones."
I cannot do this in SC 2 because my Stalkers, once hit by concussive shell, become too slow to micro back and save. until you have blink. That's why progamers these days get blink before charge in TvP, because then they can still poke around with stalkers against bio then. It's one of the things that just had to be developed, but a lot of people in the community still don't get that this is the way the game is being played now, and not the combat focused way they in their low leagues play. It's one of those interesting timing dynamics like banelings vs marines, banelings vs stim marines and speedbanelings vs stim marines. They are differently useful against each other at different timings/tech stages. Ugh.. So many make this arguement. Just take casting abilities out of the equation people! Keep it simpler. What if its too early for Blink and he has Conc shell (which is entirely possible). I have Stalkers, what can I do now with my Stalkers to increase my chances of winning an engagement with Marauders? Step 1: Attack move. The pathing of the game forms a natural concave with out any real input from me. Step 2??? What can I do now!? My entire life depends on this one engagement, I have the opportunity cost to use up all right now to help try and save me! Well, I cant really do nothing but sit back and watch really... Not with micro reducing conc shell. No, I won't make it simpler. All you BW guys do is argue that the game is too simple and when I give you a complex argument back, I should keep it simpler... That's exactly why you don't see the beauty of SC2. You keep it simple in your head when it really isn't. I could also tell you: In BW siege tanks are too good and micro reducing. Then you tell me that you can do zealot drops and stuff like that and I can tell you "keep it simple. what if you don't have zealot drops...". And if you have a timing problem with the blink vs conc shells argument, then you will either have to develope a concept in which you get an earlier blink, or you will have to accept that there is a timing in which you don't have it against conc shells, like you accepted that there are hydra timings against which you don't have storm in BW...
Im not a broodwar guy... Never played the game. But since picking up SC 2 I have watched old broodwar games. And I admit, without any fan bias: they are on average more exiting games to watch. Even without an english commentator I could understand most games and clearly see how a players micro saved him or lost him the game. Thats because the unit designs were magnificent: both simple AND complex at the same time. My favorite player to watch iin BW is Bisu. When he first came out with the Bisu build Blizzard did not come out with a counter chart that said DT/Sair was good against Zerg. Bisu was an artist, putting together a combination of units and using them in a magnificent way. I don't see how this kind of discovery can happen in SC 2. The unit designs are too restrictive (too fine a purpose for each unit).
Want to know why reavers beat collossis? Reavers had high damage but were slow. To compensate they could be used in combo with drop ships to increase mobility. But thats not all... they could be used to harass with a dropship!! All of this requiring considerable micro.
PS I love watching SC 2 games
|
On January 15 2012 03:41 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2012 02:15 Rybaia wrote:
I would actually like hear what the OP has to say about the Broodlord.
What about it? It's a pretty cool unit that has some great interactions.
Im a Protoss player and still think the archon toliet against Broods is retarded. Its exciting but feels like the game builds up to that one moment of if the archon toliet is successful or not. It cheapens the experience for both the Zerg and the Protoss.
|
On January 15 2012 03:43 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2012 22:06 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 21:45 R3demption wrote:On January 14 2012 21:29 Big J wrote:On January 14 2012 21:25 R3demption wrote:
My complaint on concussive shell:
(From Liquidpedia) "Micro is the ability to control your units individually...The general theory of micro is to keep as many units alive as possible. For example it is better to have four half-dead Dragoons after a battle, rather than to have two Dragoons at full health and two dead ones."
I cannot do this in SC 2 because my Stalkers, once hit by concussive shell, become too slow to micro back and save. until you have blink. That's why progamers these days get blink before charge in TvP, because then they can still poke around with stalkers against bio then. It's one of the things that just had to be developed, but a lot of people in the community still don't get that this is the way the game is being played now, and not the combat focused way they in their low leagues play. It's one of those interesting timing dynamics like banelings vs marines, banelings vs stim marines and speedbanelings vs stim marines. They are differently useful against each other at different timings/tech stages. Ugh.. So many make this arguement. Just take casting abilities out of the equation people! Keep it simpler. What if its too early for Blink and he has Conc shell (which is entirely possible). I have Stalkers, what can I do now with my Stalkers to increase my chances of winning an engagement with Marauders? Step 1: Attack move. The pathing of the game forms a natural concave with out any real input from me. Step 2??? What can I do now!? My entire life depends on this one engagement, I have the opportunity cost to use up all right now to help try and save me! Well, I cant really do nothing but sit back and watch really... Not with micro reducing conc shell. No, I won't make it simpler. All you BW guys do is argue that the game is too simple and when I give you a complex argument back, I should keep it simpler... That's exactly why you don't see the beauty of SC2. You keep it simple in your head when it really isn't. I could also tell you: In BW siege tanks are too good and micro reducing. Then you tell me that you can do zealot drops and stuff like that and I can tell you "keep it simple. what if you don't have zealot drops...". And if you have a timing problem with the blink vs conc shells argument, then you will either have to develope a concept in which you get an earlier blink, or you will have to accept that there is a timing in which you don't have it against conc shells, like you accepted that there are hydra timings against which you don't have storm in BW... Im not a broodwar guy... Never played the game. But since picking up SC 2 I have watched old broodwar games. And I admit, without any fan bias: they are on average more exiting games to watch. Even without an english commentator I could understand most games and clearly see how a players micro saved him or lost him the game. Thats because the unit designs were magnificent: both simple AND complex at the same time. My favorite player to watch iin BW is Bisu. When he first came out with the Bisu build Blizzard did not come out with a counter chart that said DT/Sair was good against Zerg. Bisu was an artist, putting together a combination of units and using them in a magnificent way. I don't see how this kind of discovery can happen in SC 2. The unit designs are too restrictive (too fine a purpose for each unit). Want to know why reavers beat collossis? Reavers had high damage but were slow. To compensate they could be used in combo with drop ships to increase mobility. But thats not all... they could be used to harass with a dropship!! All of this requiring considerable micro. PS I love watching SC 2 games
Just give it time. SC2 can and will be more exciting than BW as players continue to get better. Just look at how much better games are now compared to the first few seasons of GSL. Everything is dependent on the players and how good they get at the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
