EPTDo We Want the Game Harder? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
| ||
|
TemujinGK
United States483 Posts
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. ...What about Jaedong with insane 70, 80+% winrate in ZvZ in pro BW leagues? What about Flash with 70+% win rate in all matchups? There are and were (i.e. BoxeR, naDa, July) incredible players in BW with 2/3 win rates or above for periods of time. Your supporting points are silly and it detracts from your correct (imo) assertion that the game should be harder. | ||
Sanchonator
Australia490 Posts
On January 23 2012 21:30 TemujinGK wrote: ...What about Jaedong with insane 70, 80+% winrate in ZvZ in pro BW leagues? What about Flash with 70+% win rate in all matchups? There are and were (i.e. BoxeR, naDa, July) incredible players in BW with 2/3 win rates or above for periods of time. Your supporting points are silly and it detracts from your correct (imo) assertion that the game should be harder. i think he means the skill cap isnt low enough to matter, ie: better players having high winrates if the skill cap was low top players would average out at 50% across the board | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
For example, the micro-bots that are out there clearly show that people could do a lot of amazing stuff if they have spare apm. Also, how "hard" a game is depends not so much on the game engine, but also on the human player you are playing against. Sc:bw bonjwas have years of experience in their game, this is simply not yet possible for sc2 players. I see the point that sc2 is maybe more random than sc:bw is now. But you are comparing a game with a history of 10++ years of competitive gaming to one with 2 years. I dare to say that sc:bw produced equally "random" results when it was existing as long as sc2 does now. | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
That said, we'll see how it is after LotV I think, and I'm confident the game will grow in to something even greater than it is now. | ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
The fact starcraft 2 took a step up from them, is a good thing. The mechanics have improved, making simple tasks easier. who the fuck wants to smash 20 buttons just to move 20 zerglings? manually move your workers to mine? seriously? People defending BW's mechanics over SC2's are downright stupid. Its like saying you prefer to use your nails to peel a potato over a knife or potato peeler, because thats how people used to do it, who cares if it takes 10x as long! -Anything else related to BW vs SC2 is fair game, but general progression of mechanics and design is a stupid subject. A game is not good because it is poorly designed or has low limitations. (AI and UI respectively.) User was warned for this post | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
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. | ||
|
Noobity
United States871 Posts
BW was more difficult mechanically, and nobody would disagree with that. However these mechanics were more difficult because it was a game that was made with now out-dated technology and ideas that in hindsight were ridiculous. The addition of larger control groups and auto-harvesting workers made the mechanics reasonable for the every-gamer. I'd argue that SC2 gives you more time to think and adapt, to strategize, and to put yourself in more of the role of a general commanding their highly trained forces, then some school teacher making sure their students don't eat paste. A smarter game /= an easier game. A smarter game = a more accessible game. SC2 is just as difficult as BW, just difficult in a different way, and I don't see why these threads keep popping up. | ||
|
Detwiler
United States239 Posts
ikr where does this come from. Oh and we are way more superficial than asains? Have you been to SKorea? Try picking up a girl in Seoul. Nuff said. | ||
|
Omsomsoms
Croatia194 Posts
| ||
|
Sooooil
Germany497 Posts
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. U know that the "dominance" of these Code S players is nothing compared to BW Bonjwa's? | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On January 23 2012 21:32 Sanchonator wrote: i think he means the skill cap isnt low enough to matter, ie: better players having high winrates if the skill cap was low top players would average out at 50% across the board This. Also, I think TemujinGK mistook me for someone else. I was saying the game doesn't need to be harder. | ||
|
Treziel
United Kingdom123 Posts
Every time one of these threads about a skill cap appears, all you have is a bunch of master-level players whining because they think they lose too many games because of luck. In actual fact, they are losing because they are actually not pro gamers, and will never be pro gamers, but like to think that they are as good the pro's but are just a bit 'unlucky'. Come back and whine about a low skill cap when you can win roughly 50% of your games against a player like MVP. Or even just a mid-tier foreigner pro. Show me some top professional players who want the game harder because they think it is too easy. | ||
|
DeepBlu2
United States975 Posts
On January 23 2012 21:34 Noobity wrote: The game is as hard as the players make it. Give it a couple years and you'll see the difficulty of the game raised. BW was more difficult mechanically, and nobody would disagree with that. However these mechanics were more difficult because it was a game that was made with now out-dated technology and ideas that in hindsight were ridiculous. The addition of larger control groups and auto-harvesting workers made the mechanics reasonable for the every-gamer. I'd argue that SC2 gives you more time to think and adapt, to strategize, and to put yourself in more of the role of a general commanding their highly trained forces, then some school teacher making sure their students don't eat paste. A smarter game /= an easier game. A smarter game = a more accessible game. SC2 is just as difficult as BW, just difficult in a different way, and I don't see why these threads keep popping up. Although SC2 may be focused more in different areas than its predecessor, and less in mechanics, it doesn't mean that SC2 is just as hard. SC2 requires different skills, but if you added it all together, BW still requires a higher physical capability in the form of APM and stronger mental capability. I feel like Blizzard removing some of the difficulty of the game lowered the skill ceiling but didn't make the game more fun. | ||
|
Elefes
Russian Federation164 Posts
With clumpy control, crazy hotkeys, poor AI, w/e... And... I wonder how would you treat BW in that case... How ez and noob that game is with normal pointer (wow even my grandma can use mouse, just leave), keyboard (haha, 1a-2a-3a what a joke, buy skill), etc. While MAYBE (i.e. in terms of gameplay) the game didn't lose anything, just bacame more user-friendly. Well, that's not exactly the case of BW --> SC2, yet it is likely that, to a certain extend, hardcore BW-ers overestimate 'mechanical' skill and underestimate good desicion making and tactics. And SC2 is damned young!) | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On January 23 2012 21:38 Sooooil wrote: U know that the "dominance" of these Code S players is nothing compared to BW Bonjwa's? The people who can achieve unusual success at the top levels of either game are outliers, and BW, at its peak, had more high-level pros, thus more, and more extreme, outliers. | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
 | ||
|
kazansky
Germany931 Posts
The main issue I have with this your approach boiling down the success of Broodwar, or SC2 recently, to one aspect that is hardness. I think this is a way too singleton approach. Yes, Starcraft 2 is way easier to play than Broodwar on the macro side. Yes, it is easier to use than Broodwar is. But we have 2012 and not 1998 anymore. Compare other games around to other games released back then. Halflife Deathmatch players will giggle upon what Quake Live players from now call aiming or movement, the same with MLGs flagship Halo compared to Counterstrike in its beta form. Games don't have to be impossibly hard to entertain people and establish as sport. Poker, of all, displayed that very well. And just because the game is easy to handle as a beginner, it does not mean it can be solved. Your cons point is worded as though some random masters player could beat Code S material players just by luck. Which does not happen. These players, despite not having the work ethics of broodwar pros, practice tons a day to not get beaten by the random masters player. You are, despite not saying it directly, minoring the effort of any pro player on SC2 with your argumentation, saying that if they win, it might aswell be luck, or supplied by an arbitrary low skill cap. I would guess many pro players would strongly disagree. And on a final note, luck does not harm a sport. 50% of all games of football can be assigned to some way of luck (this is an actual statistic of Roland Loy's book about football statistics (german). Yet it is the biggest, most successful sport in the world, keeping alive a huge marketing industry, trumendous player salaries and remains a growing market in a world in crisis. Even in eSports, Counterstrike and Warcraft 3, the two biggest eSports games in the west prior to the Sc2 release, had a significant luck component. It didn't harm their popularity or their competition for a long period. | ||
|
bbm
United Kingdom1320 Posts
On January 23 2012 21:38 Sooooil wrote: U know that the "dominance" of these Code S players is nothing compared to BW Bonjwa's? And it took two years between BW being released and BoxeR's dominance (I think, not too hot on bw history). Your point? | ||
|
FT.aCt)Sony
United States1049 Posts
On January 23 2012 21:10 ampson wrote: When some random code B player beats MVP in a BO5 you can tell me that the skillcap is too low. You are aware Code B is the title given to individuals who can't get into Code A but meet the requirements to compete in Code A Qualifiers correct? Just want to make sure. For the op, Yes Starcraft 2 should be harder. They should remove majority of the easy mode addons this game has implemented. Having the game like Brood War would by far remove 90% of the individuals who are supposedly "not supposed to be in GM" and it would require actual mechanics at all times to be good much like Brood War was. But if Blizzard reverts from this Browderfied version of Starcraft, they will lose alot of their player base but that's ok, because majority of that player base is probably the elitist bm tools who do nothing but all-in every game. | ||
| ||
