|
On January 24 2012 03:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 03:06 shadymmj wrote:On January 24 2012 02:55 shiroiusagi wrote:
People need to stop thinking BW is harder than SC2. SC2 is an IMPROVEMENT of BW. Same as how WC3 was an IMPROVEMENT of WC2. Groups are not mean to just clump up all armies into one hotkey and A-1. Players need to separate armies themselves and micro armies for survival. The game has improved mechanics to allow you to do more in-between.. Having to seperate armies yourself is adding another "artificial" layer of mechanics into the game, especially when said armies seem to clump up at virtually any given chance. This IMO is not much different from the argument made against BW. BW has 3 types of APM dumps: Macro, micro and multitasking. Multitasking really means using APM to monitor the progress of many things at once by moving the screen. It's very hard to do all 3 perfectly at once, which gives players a certain "style". Does it mean that highest APM = best player in BW? No. You had to dedicate your APM to each field smartly enough to win. But every player can be very good at macro in SC2, without sacrificing much. There is consequentially very little "style" to the game, you will never see a cheater terran or a tyrant with his mutalisk control, and you will never experience the jaw dropping moment where one player suddenly has a huge army while being busy elsewhere. MarineKingPrime still has mindblowing marine micro. Bomber is purely defined by Macro. NesTea just has better decisions than others. Incas Mirco with gateway units. MCs forcefields. MMA's drops. Should I go on?
Go on please because everything you have said have already been done in broodwar .
 BoxeR has great mnm control versus lurkers which still amazing by today standard's
 BeSt is purely defined by Macro
 sAviOr has better strategy making decision than others in his prime
Kal Loves microing his reaver's and destroying people with them
JangBi destroyed Fantasy with 2 base carrier build
Flash can play any style .
Should I go on too ?
|
On January 24 2012 03:09 sickoota wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 03:02 Tyrant0 wrote:On January 24 2012 02:55 sickoota wrote:
When a player who hasn't even played for a year (bling) can beat freakin MVP, and indeed MVP has to resort to 1/1/1 to beat him because honestly early game unit micro has a higher skillcap than lategame 1a vs 1a in TvP there is something WRONG Yeah cause basing the comparison of a 2 year old game to a 10 year old game upon one match, out of tens of thousands, definitely constitutes legitimate evidence. edit: and you treat late game control like no one is ever going to get better at it in 8 years. this post, lol Do you play the game? Try playing a maxed out TvP battle in sc2 vs a maxed out TvP battle in BW. Its not a matter of the mechanics either - give BW infinite unit selection and there is still 1000 times more ways to use your skill than sc2. Watch some progamer streams sometimes. Once armies have actually engaged (after positioning) zerg and protoss will most of the time (after 1a and maybe some target firing) look away from the battle to go do injects/macro. Microing in 200/200 fights often does more harm than good with the speed at which units evaporate.
No, I have never touched any starcraft title, ever. If I honestly answered yes to this stupid question, are my arguments void? Is the person with more experience entitled to victory in a debate?
Units don't clump in BW. It's really hard for tanks to hit so many zealots per volley as it is for zealots to reach a tank not within range of another. It's only natural the fights occur more slowly.
There is a FUCK ton of micro in TvP in maxed fights, how the fuck do you even say this? EVERY engagement the Terran is required (by required I mean its simply better 100% of the time) to constantly be kiting zealots and mitigating the damage storms or colossus can do. Ghosts vs Templar. Ghosts vs Templar in warp prisms. The UNFORGIVING struggle for position as both players move around the map trying to track the other, possibly one of the most single APM intensive situations in SC2 as your normal macro cycles need to happen at such a speed that the split second of not seeing your army suddenly gets you emp'ed/stormed/lose half your army from an incorrect position; Alot of Terran and Protoss pros won't even afford the risk and keep their camera centered on their army until they have correctly engaged, or fallen back.
And please, go on and elaborate on the uses of units. I'm not sure if I was supposed to simply accept your word as fact and not randomly tossed out bullshit. I don't even understand what you hope to gain. SC2 is evolving, units get new uses with each meta game shift, which broodwar has many, many more over SC2 due to time. SC2 has new and constantly developing uses outside of units in conjunction that broodwar may or may not have.
|
On January 24 2012 03:00 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 02:55 sickoota wrote:
When a player who hasn't even played for a year (bling) can beat freakin MVP, and indeed MVP has to resort to 1/1/1 to beat him because honestly early game unit micro has a higher skillcap than lategame 1a vs 1a in TvP there is something WRONG Or that's the way such sports work. Basel beat Manchester United in soccer and Greece even won the European Championsship in 2004...
I agree that some players should be toppled. The concept that if a pro like MVP loses, then it must be because the game is to easy. MVP is not unbeatable in any way. He has weaknesses in his play like every other player and will lose if players exploit them.
The game will get harder over time. However, I think there is a problem with the amount a player needs to "camp" their army to defend a paticular area. Their are specific points for all races where they need to have very tight control almost the instant a conflict begins. Whether it is forcefield, storm, emp, fungal or controling a banling, there are these moments where one player has to have some very tight control or risk losing the game. From what I have seen over the year of professional play is that makes usestable match ups.
To be clear, I like that the game and it should hard. But I would rather have something that is hard to control, but allowed a player to recover half way through the fight. Right now, a lot is decided by one storm, EMP or baneling. We could increase that to 2, 3 or 4 of any of those and it would be better for all the match ups.
But I don't know how to make the game more "stable" and I won't theory craft a magic unit or control that would allow it to happen. Players may need some way to pay a specific amount to "lock down" an area and make it to costly to attack through that route. I think HotS is moving in that direction, but we will see.
|
On January 23 2012 21:34 Tobberoth wrote:
The important factor isn't that it should be harder / more difficult to play. I don't think anyone seriously wants 12 unit selection back. We want to keep all of those aspects which make the game more playable, and instead make the strategy more complex and important.
For example, defenders advantage. In BW, you had a lesser chance to hit your opponent when firing up a cliff, even if you had vision. In SC2, it's all about vision, nothing else matters. Is this easier? Not really, but it's simpler. THAT'S what most people who laud BW want to get into SC2: Make the game more complex without making it harder to physically play.
While micro skills and macro skills are more appreciated in BW because they are harder to perform physically, it's the higher level we want to enjoy. Seeing two 200/200 armies bash into each other for 4 seconds and then seeing a winner is boring, even if there was some nice drop play in the middle of it. What we want are long games which are constantly back and forth with minor engagements, zoning and multitasking, and a game which is complex enough to support this and discourage people from A-moving everything for the win.
Agreed 100%.
I also think HotS is a major step in the right direction, as blizzard is actively trying to disassemble the a-move balls.
|
The game's difficulty has nothing to do with its attractiveness to crowds. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people watch Starcraft 2 matches without even owning the game. At any rate, it can't be made a lot harder without sacrificing basic interface features; some of which are practically mandatory because people will ask for them. Think infinite selection, as an example. Consider also that SC2 is missing other amazing interface features, like the amazing zoom in-out in games like Supreme Commander.
|
I think people use the time argument for sc2's lack of depth and sophisticatedness way too much and give it way too much weight. When bw was out people did not know how to llay rts games. No one knew what macro was and
How games should be even played at all in a high competitive level. However sc2 has all this knowledge available about the rts genre and the scene and players have all matured ans gained a lot of experience of rts games thrpugh bw. Id say the development of sc2 has about a 3-4 years lead over the initial bw scene
|
Also for those saying "wait for Sc2 to develop a higher skill cap" they are ignoring the flipside of their proposition - that as time goes on players will get closer and closer in skill. The issue is not that the skill "ceiling" is too low. Any RTS game has a theoretically near infinite skill ceiling. Someone who wanted to would be able to pair up every single worker to the closest mineral patches like we see players do in the early game, all game long. Or make sure that they never queue up a single probe ever, or other such things. The issue is that after a while more and more players will reach a point where these subtle manifestations of skill will cease to make a difference to the outcome of the game. No one denies that MVP is BETTER in all sorts of tiny subtle ways than his opponents, but the issue is that as time goes on a point will be reached where the skills he has not yet perfected will be so insignificant that they will no longer have an effect on the game, and eventually everyone will be able to functionally replicate what MVP does. We see the approach of this "functional skill ceiling" already. If the game truly had as much potential as everyone wants it to than we should see the Korean scene accelerating farther and farther away from the foreign scene, where instead the opposite is happening. There is a "finish line" in terms of functional sc2 skill, and as the Koreans come closer and closer to it their progress is slowing down as they are left only developing extremely minor skills as ways in which to differentiate themselves from the pack. Eventually they are going to run out of things to develop, and not too long after that the foreigners will catch up entirely. Taking "the game is young" as an indicator that players will be able to differentiate themselves through skill more in the future is actually an argument for exactly the opposite.
|
On January 24 2012 03:22 Sawamura wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 03:10 Big J wrote:On January 24 2012 03:06 shadymmj wrote:On January 24 2012 02:55 shiroiusagi wrote:
People need to stop thinking BW is harder than SC2. SC2 is an IMPROVEMENT of BW. Same as how WC3 was an IMPROVEMENT of WC2. Groups are not mean to just clump up all armies into one hotkey and A-1. Players need to separate armies themselves and micro armies for survival. The game has improved mechanics to allow you to do more in-between.. Having to seperate armies yourself is adding another "artificial" layer of mechanics into the game, especially when said armies seem to clump up at virtually any given chance. This IMO is not much different from the argument made against BW. BW has 3 types of APM dumps: Macro, micro and multitasking. Multitasking really means using APM to monitor the progress of many things at once by moving the screen. It's very hard to do all 3 perfectly at once, which gives players a certain "style". Does it mean that highest APM = best player in BW? No. You had to dedicate your APM to each field smartly enough to win. But every player can be very good at macro in SC2, without sacrificing much. There is consequentially very little "style" to the game, you will never see a cheater terran or a tyrant with his mutalisk control, and you will never experience the jaw dropping moment where one player suddenly has a huge army while being busy elsewhere. MarineKingPrime still has mindblowing marine micro. Bomber is purely defined by Macro. NesTea just has better decisions than others. Incas Mirco with gateway units. MCs forcefields. MMA's drops. Should I go on? Go on please because everything you have said have already been done in broodwar . BoxeR has great mnm control versus lurkers which still amazing by today standard's BeSt is purely defined by Macro sAviOr has better strategy making decision than others in his prime Kal Loves microing his reaver's and destroying people with them JangBi destroyed Fantasy with 2 base carrier build Flash can play any style . Should I go on too ?
And everything BW players have achieved has already been done in soccer:
Pele had great dribblings
Beckenbauer was a great captain
Beckham's freekicks were like penalties
Zidane's passes never missed their target
besides I don't know why you are telling me that... The argument was that SC2 doesn't have players that have trademark abilities. I disagree and you're post acknowledges that. Still you are trying to argue against me with going offtopic "BW also had trademark moves". Something noones has doubted...
|
On January 23 2012 21:01 -stOpSKY- wrote:
I would definitely like the see the game increase in difficulty and involve more skill. I mean you can make it into mid level masters just on pure macro ability alone. You dont even need any form of micro or high sustained APM and multi tasking skill.
if good macro alone sets you above 99% of other players, that means its not easy to macro which = hard.
if you said u can macro perfectly and still not break silver league. that means 80% or more can macro perfectly which means its not hard.
what makes it hard is your opponent.
|
I think the game will obviously get harder as time goes on, with all the addons that the expansions will bring. If you've seen the new units comming in tHotS then you know how much micro will be needed at a high level in the coming months. More units, more options, more maps, more control needed. This game will get inherently harder with time, plus the skillcap is always on the rise.
|
The easy answer is SC2 is good as it is, since it obviously is a biggest success as an eSports title to date (LoL has its stream numbers, Dota 2 and CoD have their million $ + tournaments, but neither have that massive amount of tournaments on all scales and that count of "real" pro players (hi Milkis!))
For me personally I see where I would not like SC2 to get harder. I do not want the game to be harder because of bad UI. MBS, smartcasting, unit selection are examples where SC2's UI is plain better. Stalkers not derping around chokes like their precessors did -- well, that is not really UI, but I still like the fact that units actually go where I ordered them to go. But when it comes to units clumping up in tight balls -- now this is where we can start to debate, would the game be "not accessible enough" if they did not do that (but it would sure make more interesting gameplay if it wasn't the case)
When it comes to "technical" units -- I honestly don't think they will make the game more frustrating for lower skilled players, especially since they will always have an alternative "easy" strategy
|
Well as a casual spectator, you don't really have the experience of how hard it is to macro and stuff like that.
So it's about strategy and action packed games. SC2 has this to a greater degree, cuz mechanics are less defined to making the best player.
|
Just wait till HotS, new units with new abilities. It'll be a whole new game.
|
On January 23 2012 20:58 Lysenko wrote:
That there are GSL Code S players who win two thirds or more of their games tells me there's no skill cap that matters in SC2.
Completely agree with Lysenko here.
to OP, What do you mean the game is "Easy?" Firehand101, no offense but I've never heard of you. If you find this game so easy where are your tournament wins? It's so easy for you I'm sure you can crush players like MVP and Nestea without breaking a sweat as long as you pick the right build order, right? I mean the skill ceiling is so low who hasn't reached it by now?
Do you watch many games? I buy the GSL yearly pass, and I can tell you that you almost never see anyone 1A to victory. Both players are playing to the absolute extent of their abilities in every game and the games are more and more often becoming nail biters. Just stop bringing up BW at every possible chance, it's getting sad.
I don't care if the poll indicates I'm in the minority here, (Which I think is misleading anyway because it basically only provides options to agree with you.) this is a game between two players, both of you can box all of your units at once, and the fact that you think that makes the game "Easy" is really silly to me. I don't think the game needs to be "harder" at all, if you want a more difficult experience play against better opponents. I think interface improvements have been made to the game which enhance the strategic and tactical aspects of the game. If you 1A or get 1A'd it just means you're not playing at the appropriate skill level. The fact that you think this game is easier or requires any less skill is just dumbfounding to me, because nothing was changed that both players don't benefit from. If you want to play a game where remembering to send your workers to mine takes precedence over scouting and responding to the information you gain, that's fine, keep playing Brood War. But please can we stop making these "SC2 is EZMODE!" posts?
Again, as this is a game between two players, the ease argument just doesn't actually apply. Instead, you should make suggestions for mechanic tweaks or map changes that would increase the strategic depth or emphasize micro during battles. I'm sorry, but selecting only twelve units at once DOES NOT make the game easier or harder, because it affects both players. If you have the mechanics and strategic thinking of a player like Flash, you would still Roflstomp me in SC2 just as much as BW. The difference, is that your extra APM is going to aspects of the game that are less trivial and more indicative of actually being an effective commander of troops.
If you prefer the old way, that's fine, I completely understand the aspects of gaming that a game like BW emphasizes, but BW still works fine so if that's the experience you want just keep playing BroodWar. SC2 is going in a different direction and you might not understand it, but at least voice an argument that is more substantial than "It's too easy."
|
On January 24 2012 03:49 Warillions wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 21:01 -stOpSKY- wrote:
I would definitely like the see the game increase in difficulty and involve more skill. I mean you can make it into mid level masters just on pure macro ability alone. You dont even need any form of micro or high sustained APM and multi tasking skill. if good macro alone sets you above 99% of other players, that means its not easy to macro which = hard. if you said u can macro perfectly and still not break silver league. that means 80% or more can macro perfectly which means its not hard. what makes it hard is your opponent.
Good macro gets you into Masters in NA and the lesser servers. Try going on the KR server. This is just about NA players being awful rather than the game being easy, so yes it is about your opponent.
|
On January 23 2012 20:58 Lysenko wrote:
That there are GSL Code S players who win two thirds or more of their games tells me there's no skill cap that matters in SC2.
This!
It seems like people think that BW stars like Flash can use their enourmous skill and almost never lose to lesser players.
Flash has a winrate of 72%, Jaedong 68%, Bisu 62%.
In SC2 MVP has 68%, Nestea 68%, DRG 67%.
Ok, the samplesize is smaller. And winrates in SC2 will be a bit smaller. But not by a lot.
|
While it might bring more people in initially, I think it will hurt sc2's longevity. When people get really good we wont see as big of a difference between players and there will be less to be excited about and the game will be repetitive (or too volatile).
You don't need to go back to 12 unit control groups but there's a lot you could do by adding units that take more micro. Unfortunately, features like smart cast I don't see going away. It's hard to be excited when a pro spams storms when you could do it just as well.
|
United States9232 Posts
The allins just need to be made weaker via weakening of macro mechanics and adjusting warpgates imo. Inject larvae allows for massive bursts of either econ or units to be made, which can swing things dramatically and make it harder to scout allins while also making them significantly easier to pulloff. Mules are relatively self explanatory by allowing SCVs to be sacked. Warpgate mechanic just opens the game to so many allin timings it's absolutely RIDICULOUS (which could be solved by making the transition from gateway to warpgate significantly longer, or having warpgates start with a cooldown, or something of that sort, although then the early game would need to be rebalanced etc. etc.).
I can't stand these features, and it has indeed turned SC2 into a far more cheesy/allin rewarding game.
|
If anything Blizzard needs to find a way to make the game easier to capture today's gamers. We're already losing players rapidly as it is.
Maybe through better custom games or adding a separate ladder with some handicap on, such as workers and units production becomes automatic so new players can focus on the fighting part of the game, make few buildings, and not have to worry so much about macro.
|
The success of SC2 in the west over BW has more to do with technology(in my opinion) then with either game. eSports could thrive in Korea because they had a means to watch it(TV) and an audience for it. That spawned it as a career and grew the scene and with the bigger/better scene the skill went up. SC2 is popular in the west now because we have a means to watch it. Streaming quality makes it possible to watch events all over the world. Blizzard's rise in popularity has given SC2 more fans as a result. Lots of SC2 fans came from WoW. Nowadays everyone knows about Blizzard, through WoW mostly but you could stop people on the street and ask them about WoW and they would most likely know what you are talking about. Not at all the case when BW was out. Also, Korea has one of the best internet connection speeds in the world, which meant that the online experience of BW was much better and more accessible as most places in Korea had internet access, certainly not the case ten years ago in the West(at least in the US).
tl;dr SC2 scene is bigger now because of Technology being better, Blizzard being more popular and well known, and greater use of Internet and computer games compared to ten years ago. These play a much bigger factor in the game's success then the difficulty of play
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
