|
On January 23 2012 21:03 CecilSunkure wrote:
SC2 is more accessible than BW for sure, but I don't think the skill cap is as low as everyone makes it out to be. Not at all.
Totally. Aren't most active players below platinum level? It's not like a 'lol I played for a month now I'm GM' game.
On January 24 2012 07:45 mango_destroyer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 07:41 JDub wrote:On January 24 2012 07:37 mango_destroyer wrote:On January 24 2012 07:32 JDub wrote:On January 24 2012 07:27 mango_destroyer wrote:
Definitely needs a higher skill cap to reduce some of the luck factor. Hard work should be rewarded more, but instead I still see upsets a lot more often than BW ever did. I seen countless number of pros asking for more micro units in interviews. Upsets, for one, aren't a bad thing. It would be pretty boring to watch if there wasn't much doubt in the outcome about the result of a match, especially given how young SC2 still is. Secondly, hard work is and has been rewarded (why do we see the same top players each season in GSL, with a small bit of turnover?). Why do Koreans continue to dominate when they come to foreign tournaments (hint: hard work)? Pros are still super far from the skill ceiling. I don't see how you could possibly argue otherwise. Polt losing to Gowser.....TOP losing to Gatored..... I don`t know maybe because I am used to broodwar and expect guys who train 10-12 hours a day to dominate even more than they do now. The sc2 scene is also a lot more volatile aside from MVP Okay, you can point out a couple individual upsets. I didn't see those games, so I can't comment on them. But what about the consistent domination of the foreigner scene by Koreans? What about the consistency of those at the top of Code S? You are right about the consistency and the dominance right now. I just hold my own opinion that I would like to see BW type dominance where some semi pro can`t even dream of beating a top player.
BW is a game that is much more figured out. Top players can have every timing, every possibility, every build down to a tee. In SC2 it just isn't possible to be that good, yet. There's no reason it can never be.
|
Better scouting is an unrealistic approach to solving this problem. It is also not really the right way to think about the game. It would help you think about it more like poker, where you have probable scenarios, with expected outcomes.
First, let's acknowledge that you won't have 100% information. So you will always be making some decisions in the dark. Let's take an example, a TvP FE that forks at 4:30 for the T. Do you add 2-3 rax, or do you double gas and get early factory/port. By the time you've committed to a build, there is still time to "scout", but you are only confirming what your opponent has done. Is there any reliable way to "scout" P putting down +3 gateways for a 6 gate? They could be proxied anywhere on the map. Similarly for PvT, if a T shows you reactor on rax, do you really know if he's doing 111 or 2rax? Both of you will have committed fully, the purpose of scouting is only to control the expected outcome.
Some builds are at a disadvantage against another build, some builds lose outright to other builds. What you really want is a minimal of autolosses, but disadvantages are OK. If I choose the wrong build, I might expect to lose 5-10 workers. I might expect to be 1-2 minute behind. But, this shouldn't be an autoloss. A good game should have ways to bounce back - maybe I took 5-10 worker losses, but I have 2 CC.
The thing is that this doesn't really exist right now. If you are at a disadvantage against a Z, you will probably lose that game. There's no way to come back into the game. If you lost 7 probes against a 111, you will die to the followup. The game is just too punishing at the wrong points.
|
i want early-game cheese to be weaker =/
|
On January 24 2012 08:04 zeden wrote:
-remove smart-casting.
-equal and harsher punishment for missing mules/larvae inject/crono.
-bigger reward for great micro/control.
I] Smart-casting != intelligent-casting. Even with smart-casting, good players can select the individual casters with best positioning and energy to cast.
II] If you think missing mules, injects and chrono-boost doesnt lose you the game, you probably dont understand Code S Starcraft II.
III] Starcraft II rewards control extremely much thanks to the modern AI contrary to popular belief.
|
The game does need to be harder..... I actually don't believe that making the game harder will turn away viewers. I think just the opposite will happen. People who are skilled at something that is difficult to learn command your respect more than someone who is good at something that is easy to learn. Simple as that.
I would love to see SmartCasting removed completely to be honest.... I don't know if it would work with the current character models though. SC2 units have a tendency to clump making individual units much harder to click on. But hey..... Maybe that's a good thing 
|
wow i hate these threads they pop up once a month too
people ARE YOU FRICKING FORGETTING ABOUT STRATEGY?
macro and micro are mechanical terms, but they arent the only thing that makes the game.
theres also STRATEGY. deciding what to do with what you have and when to do it.
i know someone who is disabled for life and only can play with his left arm in a wheelchair. he plays 4v4's for fun in the bronze league. this person obviously has terrible macro and micro, but in his mind if he could control everything mentally he would still be limited by his strategy decisions.
there are actually two skill ceilings in SC2 and BW.
the MECHANICAL SKILL CEILING
and the STRATEGICAL SKILL CEILING
yes, BW is a game that is much harder to play when it comes to mechanical skill, however i think BW and SC2 are very similar in difficulty when it comes to strategy skill, and this is why both games are entertaining because both games have a high strategy skill cap.
many in this thread want to make the game harder in terms of mechanics like micro and macro. At the end of the day whether you are for or against this idea, its your opinion. We dont know who is truly right in this regard, its all an effort of preference.
Me personally, i prefer keeping the game just as easy mechanically or heck i even support making it easier mechanically. But thats just my preference. Am i right or wrong? who knows. who cares.
But i will say this about the mechanical skill ceiling. I feel the game is pretty hard mechanically and i dont feel the mechanical skill ceiling is close to being reached because players like MMA are still making mechanical mistakes. And YES, players like flash and jaedong make mechanical mistakes in BW too and thats because YES bw is mechanically even harder than SC2. Just because both games have top players making mechanical mistakes doesnt mean BW must also be "easy" mechanically like SC2, on the contrary it simply means both games have a mechanical skill ceiling higher than what any human has been able to reach yet so top players in both games make mechanical mistakes. BW's mechanical ceiling is higher than SC2 yes you are right about that BW enthusiasts, and yes i would technically say that also means BW is a harder game.
So i concede, YOU ARE RIGHT. bw IS A HARDER GAME than sc2. YOU ARE RIGHT bw enthusiasts, you are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT
ABSOLUTELY
COMPLETE RIGHT
i guess my next point is simply, that yes BW is harder than SC2, and i dont see a problem with it. LoL is easy as hell and that game gets tons of viewers, so a big part of the game is about entertainment value and that entertainment value comes from the skill ceiling being high and seeing which players can test their skills against eachother to find out who wins. and the skill ceiling means MICRO, MACRO, and also STRATEGY.
And in that regard, SC2 and BW are both perfectly fine games where players can test their skills against eachother, and as such that means both SC2 and BW are entertaining games to watch (if your into that sort of thing). And when your watching BW and SC2, your mainly entertained by the players STRATEGY skill abilities, not their mechanical abilities. And the winner of the game normally also wins due to STRATEGY making ability when games are between two players with top mechanics.
Yes, BW is harder, but both games still are about one person using their skill to battle against another persons skill, and in that respect, both games are still entertaining to watch.
which game is better? thats up to opinion. I will concede that BW is harder than SC2. You win there BW enthusiats.
However dont forget these are strategy games as well and not everything is about macro and micro. In the realm of strategy skill ceiling, is BW harder than SC2 ? honestly i dont know, maybe, but i would say they are pretty darn close,
and thats why SC2 is viewed by many as being just as entertaining as BW because i believe the strategy skill ceilings are similar in both games, and i believe the majority of the entertainment value in these games is coming from the strategy point of view, meaning that because both games have high strategy skill ceilings they are both great fun to watch
|
On January 24 2012 08:29 Vei wrote:
i want early-game cheese to be weaker =/
That would make the game very one dimensional and uninteresting.
What should happened is that scouting is more viable... sometimes it doesnt matter what you do, there is so way for you to know whats coming. But when the game has been out for 5+ years i bet you we will see some people that wins almost everything.
|
On January 24 2012 07:47 00Visor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 06:59 sereniity wrote:
The reason that the Code S winners MVP, NesTea, MC etc don't win as much as the BW top does (Flash, Jaedong etc) is pretty simple. But they do. MVP, Nestea and Jaedong have a winrate of 68%. Only Flash is at 72%. Where has this perception come from that in BW the stars don't lose against lesser players?
70% winrate in bw where people have been practicing for 7+ years and have been developing strategy for 12 years is a hell of a lot more impressive. There have been many people in the past that have been down right terrible in code s and were a free win against anyone decent, in BW flash never gets a free win everyone he comes up against is a complete monster and one of the top 50 players in the game. Also there is the matter of terran in korea just doing a lot better then the races that could skew the results a lot as well.
I think that the measure of skill ceiling in a game can only be measured in how consistent the people are at the top. Currently in sc2 the top 8 in the gsl are never consistent with maybe only a few from the last season. If skill more easily translated into a win through mechanics that reward skill with a true advantage we would see the top 8 or even 16 be a lot more consistent. Good people would simlpy not lose to a lesser player.
|
On January 24 2012 09:18 JohnQPublic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 07:47 00Visor wrote:On January 24 2012 06:59 sereniity wrote:
The reason that the Code S winners MVP, NesTea, MC etc don't win as much as the BW top does (Flash, Jaedong etc) is pretty simple. But they do. MVP, Nestea and Jaedong have a winrate of 68%. Only Flash is at 72%. Where has this perception come from that in BW the stars don't lose against lesser players? 70% winrate in bw where people have been practicing for 7+ years and have been developing strategy for 12 years is a hell of a lot more impressive. There have been many people in the past that have been down right terrible in code s and were a free win against anyone decent, in BW flash never gets a free win everyone he comes up against is a complete monster and one of the top 50 players in the game. Also there is the matter of terran in korea just doing a lot better then the races that could skew the results a lot as well. I think that the measure of skill ceiling in a game can only be measured in how consistent the people are at the top. Currently in sc2 the top 8 in the gsl are never consistent with maybe only a few from the last season. If skill more easily translated into a win through mechanics that reward skill with a true advantage we would see the top 8 or even 16 be a lot more consistent. Good people would simlpy not lose to a lesser player.
So if the reason that it's impressive is the years put into the game then how the fuck is this even relevant to the skillcap of SC2?
|
On January 24 2012 08:30 ChoboDane wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:04 zeden wrote:
-remove smart-casting.
-equal and harsher punishment for missing mules/larvae inject/crono.
-bigger reward for great micro/control.
I] Smart-casting != intelligent-casting. Even with smart-casting, good players can select the individual casters with best positioning and energy to cast. II] If you think missing mules, injects and chrono-boost doesnt lose you the game, you probably dont understand Code S Starcraft II. III] Starcraft II rewards control extremely much thanks to the modern AI contrary to popular belief.
Seems you didn't even read past the first item.
-removing smart-casting: I made a mistake. I wanted to remove the attack priority for units, so a-move loses to microed army.
-I said EQUAL AND HARSHER punishment. Right now missing mules or chrono is not even close o missing larvae injects. I want a equal punishment for all 3 races.
-The reward for micro is extremely less than any previous successful rts (sc:bw, age of empires 2, warcraft 3).
|
On January 24 2012 08:33 roymarthyup wrote:
there are actually two skill ceilings in SC2 and BW.
the MECHANICAL SKILL CEILING
and the STRATEGICAL SKILL CEILING
Thats the problem though. SC2's strategical ceiling is getting limited hard by 1-2 use units, easy but super effective strats, etc.
That's why I think Blizzard needs to stop pidgeon holing certain units down certain pathways, and instead should try adding more variety. I think they are slowly dealing with the easy but effective strat part as well.
|
what I always find ironic is people who argue for a harder difficulty and then say back in BW having non-clumping units was better. as if the two weren't related in the smallest way.
|
On January 24 2012 09:22 zeden wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:30 ChoboDane wrote:On January 24 2012 08:04 zeden wrote:
-remove smart-casting.
-equal and harsher punishment for missing mules/larvae inject/crono.
-bigger reward for great micro/control.
I] Smart-casting != intelligent-casting. Even with smart-casting, good players can select the individual casters with best positioning and energy to cast. II] If you think missing mules, injects and chrono-boost doesnt lose you the game, you probably dont understand Code S Starcraft II. III] Starcraft II rewards control extremely much thanks to the modern AI contrary to popular belief. Seems you didn't even read past the first item. -removing smart-casting: I made a mistake. I wanted to remove the attack priority for units, so a-move loses to microed army. -I said EQUAL AND HARSHER punishment. Right now missing mules or chrono is not even close o missing larvae injects. I want a equal punishment for all 3 races. -The reward for micro is extremely less than any previous successful rts (sc:bw, age of empires 2, warcraft 3).
You and I dont seem to be discussing based on the same degree of insight for which reason Im not going to bother replying to this.
|
On January 24 2012 09:24 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:33 roymarthyup wrote:
there are actually two skill ceilings in SC2 and BW.
the MECHANICAL SKILL CEILING
and the STRATEGICAL SKILL CEILING
Thats the problem though. SC2's strategical ceiling is getting limited hard by 1-2 use units, easy but super effective strats, etc. That's why I think Blizzard needs to stop pidgeon holing certain units down certain pathways, and instead should try adding more variety. I think they are slowly dealing with the easy but effective strat part as well.
I dont understand why someone such as yourself dont value strategica ltechnicalities and subtleties more than you do. Why do you not appreciate the difference between [PvT] 1g FE adding 2nd and 3rd Gateway on 33 compared to 34, based on rush distance, information at hand, and such.
|
On January 24 2012 08:29 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 21:03 CecilSunkure wrote:
SC2 is more accessible than BW for sure, but I don't think the skill cap is as low as everyone makes it out to be. Not at all. Totally. Aren't most active players below platinum level? It's not like a 'lol I played for a month now I'm GM' game.
If I remember correctly, platinum players are higher than 60%, so you are correct. I think TL as a whole does not have a realistic opinion of the ladder because the majority of the masters and GM players are here. I have meet so many gold players who don't even know what a build is or what macro means. They get to high gold, but run into a hard brick wall after than and never get much higher.
|
psh i dont think anyone has hit the skill cap people still make really bad moves/choices even at pro lvl.
|
On January 24 2012 09:28 ChoboDane wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:24 1Eris1 wrote:On January 24 2012 08:33 roymarthyup wrote:
there are actually two skill ceilings in SC2 and BW.
the MECHANICAL SKILL CEILING
and the STRATEGICAL SKILL CEILING
Thats the problem though. SC2's strategical ceiling is getting limited hard by 1-2 use units, easy but super effective strats, etc. That's why I think Blizzard needs to stop pidgeon holing certain units down certain pathways, and instead should try adding more variety. I think they are slowly dealing with the easy but effective strat part as well. I dont understand why someone such as yourself dont value strategica ltechnicalities and subtleties more than you do. Why do you not appreciate the difference between [PvT] 1g FE adding 2nd and 3rd Gateway on 33 compared to 34, based on rush distance, information at hand, and such.
Wait what? I never said anything like that. My entire post was SC2's strategical play could be improved considerably with various changes. No where did I say it was non existant or even bad
|
Yeah, I definitely think that the game should be harder, aka more mechanically demanding. As for the argument against it,lower level/casual players would still be able to play and enjoy the game, the basics would be accessible to everyone.
For me, and I think for many people, mastering difficult things brings a sense of satisfaction. The best feelings of StarCraft is when you defeat another player and it was because you are better. Because you had better mechanics, better scouting, better micro, decision making etc. The thing I love most about StarCraft is that it is a game of skill. If it took even more skill, I would love it even more.
|
On January 24 2012 09:18 JohnQPublic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 07:47 00Visor wrote:On January 24 2012 06:59 sereniity wrote:
The reason that the Code S winners MVP, NesTea, MC etc don't win as much as the BW top does (Flash, Jaedong etc) is pretty simple. But they do. MVP, Nestea and Jaedong have a winrate of 68%. Only Flash is at 72%. Where has this perception come from that in BW the stars don't lose against lesser players? 70% winrate in bw where people have been practicing for 7+ years and have been developing strategy for 12 years is a hell of a lot more impressive. There have been many people in the past that have been down right terrible in code s and were a free win against anyone decent, in BW flash never gets a free win everyone he comes up against is a complete monster and one of the top 50 players in the game. Also there is the matter of terran in korea just doing a lot better then the races that could skew the results a lot as well. I think that the measure of skill ceiling in a game can only be measured in how consistent the people are at the top. Currently in sc2 the top 8 in the gsl are never consistent with maybe only a few from the last season. If skill more easily translated into a win through mechanics that reward skill with a true advantage we would see the top 8 or even 16 be a lot more consistent. Good people would simlpy not lose to a lesser player.
Do you have actual statistics showing that top-8s in BW display more consistency than in SC2 or is this just a hunch?
|
Canada11349 Posts
@roymarthyup
Thing is that sort of argument has been used to turn a lot of strategy games into microless slugfests. I like the poster that gave the difference between complexity and depth. We don't really want to be adding hindrances to make a simple thing harder for its own sake.
For instance Warcraft 1, you couldn't left click select, right click move forward. Instead you need to left-click select, click or press 'm' to move and and left click forward or else 'a' to attack move forward. We could force players to press 'm' and then left click rather and it would be harder/ more complex, but it wouldn't add more depth. We would be doing the same thing, only there's an extra step. (To me chrono boost kinda seems that way, but we'll leave that be.)
All the micro tricks that were in BW that don't exist in SC2 don't really add complexity. It's just as easy to a-move mutalisks in one as the other (ignoring the 12 unit cap). But being able to stack muta is something more you can do, combined with hold position micro or the chinese triangle to pick off scourge, suddenly it's the same unit, but it's got more use. It has added depth. We've given the player more tools and when we give them more tools, this will help them develop their strategy. And that I think was what we mean by wanting it harder. Not harder in the sense of useless steps like everytime you make a new worker, you need to jump out of your seat, run twice around and sit back down.
Without those tools, the strategy itself becomes limited because it simply becomes a matter of directing blobs of armies on the map. And then we might as well go to the grand strategy view and be able to zoom out and direct multiple armies at once and forget about how the individual units are fighting. But that's an entirely different game. It's the precise control of units on massive battlefields or small harassment has been at the heart of Starcraft's success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
