All please read: this thread was supposed to be arguing the fact that it is the ease of the game that draws the large crowds, and without it it would be a game for the minority, not the masses. It is not really a discussion on whether or not it should be harder, that is for another thread.
What I'm trying to say is that because BW was so hard, it was very limited to who could actually play the game, but because SC2 is easier many more people can play and that is a big reason why it has shown popularity in the west like it has
As HOTS will be coming out very soon I find it important to address an issue that has been talked about relentlessly amongst the TL forums. Countless threads compare this game to its beautifully established predecessor and find absolutely every negative comparison they can find. Ease of gameplay and just being able to '1A' to victory, rather than selecting 12 units at a time to attack, has sparked a universal debate that will most likely go on for a long time still.
I, for one, am on the side that Starcraft 2 is a much, MUCH easier game than BW after playing both, strategically (most likely due to the time it had to develop) but more importantly, mechanically. Is this bad? This is the question I am asking, and I for one think that it is the most important aspect of the game.
THE CONS What are the cons of being easy to play? For the sake of professionals, it is almost heartwrenching. Lets face it, the game has a much higher luck rewarding system than BW, and we have seen many top players fall to lesser ones based on just that. The skill ceiling is not as high (yet, in WoL) which puts starcraft in a bad light when being regarded as a sport. If you don't have to work hard to reach the top, then starcraft as a sport looks a bit... 'iffy'.
So being an easy game (relatively) does have its down sides as i listed above (as well as the normal ladder game where someone obviously below your skill level beats you...) but through HOTS and the newer expansions, there will be many more units, as well as more technical units like the lurker and defiler clones for zerg (forgot their names) and the game will inevitably get harder. But the question is, do we really want this? Of course the majority would say yes, but read on...
THE PROS The biggest pro of all is that you are reading this right now. Yes you! Because the chances are that the person who I am most likely talking to is not a hardcore BW fan that makes up about 5% of the SC2 population, but the other 95% that was drawn into the game, and most importantly, stayed. Why has SC2 overtaken BW by absolute miles and changed the landscape of gaming in the west dramatically (I am excluding SK here)
It is because the relative simplicity of the game has allowed others to join in on the fun. In BW it was a harder game yes, but that forced it to be a game for the minority, not the masses. Not many people played it like they do now, and I believe it is because of the simplicity of the game. TL has grown beyond belief, to the point that threads just get to big to read after a day, and it is because the average person can be hooked on the game and enjoy playing it without having to select workers manually every single god damn time!
The ease of the game has brought the masses, and I think that making it harder will benefit the pros, but decrease the overall player base. What do you think?
TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
On January 24 2012 11:35 AxelTVx wrote: if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
Poll: Should the game continue to get harder?
Yes the game should continue to become harder (1029)
74%
It should stay at around the same level (251)
18%
ofc it should get harder, you are dumb (116)
8%
1396 total votes
Your vote: Should the game continue to get harder?
(Vote): Yes the game should continue to become harder (Vote): It should stay at around the same level (Vote): ofc it should get harder, you are dumb
You know its a good post when you cant even read the whole thing without taking a drink break + Show Spoiler +
On January 25 2012 06:10 branflakes14 wrote: It feels like a bit of a trick question. The difficulty in any multiplayer game (co-op aside) isn't the game itself, but your opponent since everything is a common factor between players and thus cancels out. What Starcraft 2 is lacking for me is the ability to control what's happening to any great extent. Everything's too one dimensional. Just like Day9 said a while ago, Starcraft 2 is like playing with a ball, there's only so much you can do with it until it just becomes a case of how accurately you can throw it.
Although Starcraft 2's lower skill requirements make it like playing with a ball, there are still many who defend it by arguing that you can always throw a ball more accurately.
Honestly... I don't like that comparison. Look at ballsports: Everyone plays with the same rules (no "race" principle), everyone plays on the same pitch (no "map" principle), everyone plays with a ball. Yet I would argue that at least in some ballgames the skilldifference between players/teams does matter at least the same as in in SC2 or BW or frisbee games. Based on those indicators: -) market value differences of players/teams -) winrates (e.g: FC Barcelona had a 79% winrate in 2010/11 in spain - no KO-sytem, which would "artificially" raise the winrate of a team to 100% if they became champion!)
But I get what Day9 tried to argue with it, but I also remember the part in which he said: "right now, it feels like this, but this may change with the metagame" and the other part where he said "in BW this was because the units did not do what you wanted them to do, unless you were babysitting them".
Also because I don't want to be always the guy who just says: "you are looking at the wrong things when you try to find ways to improve SC2", I'd like to give my opinion on what (in my eyes) could be done to further improve SC2 without breaking with fundamental game mechanics, or changing the game to broodwar 2.0:
a) slow down macro: -) larva injects should go down by 25-50% in efficientness -) mules (or Terran mineral units) should be nerfed (not removed: mule/scan duality is awesome) -) If the Nexus gets more powerful in HotS, they should also increase it's cost -) higher warpgate cooldowns and production cooldowns on Terran/Protoss unit production -) more "stepping stones" for low-mid tier units (possibly for small costs): like roach, roach+burrow, roach+speed, roach+burrow movement, or marine, marine+shield, marine+stim, marine+medivac; all without buffing the "endversion" of those units: e.g: mutalisk glaive worm upgrade, sentry guardian shield upgrade, T2 Adrenalin Glands for zerglings (combined with less larva), hellion battleform upgrade
b) Unit buffs/nerfs -) (very) small speednerfs and firespeed nerfs on most units -) (very) small buffs/upgrades for units that are hard to mass
c) strengthen micro abilities: -) more micro abilities like blink and burrow or lift, instead of raw firepower/health/speed/range balancing. -) burrow to T1, if it doesn't break the balance too much; better burrow regeneration for roaches, maybe a similar hydralisk upgrade/ability -) better methods to targetfire. (Maybe something like "shift+a"-attack on a unit forces all your units to fire at the next unit of that type, with all its consequences: overkill, units running towards the enemy line to attack the next such target - but on the other end the reward for being able to make your marauders shoot only stalkers and your marines shoot only zealots while kiting.)
d) other stuff: -) smaller detection radius - single dts/banshees and infestors and few roaches are just not worth the risk right now -) more timing interactions like zealots+1 vs zergling+0, marines with stim vs banelings without speed etc. - a little bit of additional brain tools to fool around with -) maybe more "morphs" for zerg, so that small amounts of units have more value -) better scouting options - if I know better what my opponent is doing, I can be more sure of wether I want to engage/harass or not.
What should that stuff do? a): Mostly to take money out of the game and to give players more time to work with the units they have (more poking and multitasking). Also to make the forming of huge armies a little harder overall. If only 16zerglings pop out at once instead of 20, I can poke more. If only 8drones pop out at once, the time until he can afford units again is longer. If a nexus costs more, expansions are later and Protoss has to work with less money. (same for mules) Stepping stones take out more money as well and force more complex builds, while not influencing the general unit balancing too much. I also think that taking out money takes out reactivness, therefore rewards the player that actively finds ways to trade efficiently.
b) slower units with less firepower means longer combats means more time to reposition. But I'm talking VERY small changes (like 1%). Hard to mass units (Ultralisk, Broodlord, Carrier/BC/Tempest, Mothership, Raven) are a little too limited by passive costs. 20min broodlords if and only if my opponent allows me to play in this way are just too late to really base a concrete gameplan around. But if half of the broodlords at 16min would already be a useful tool, people could experiment with smaller broodlord attacks of less bases. (or just implement an extra raven etc.)
c) I think that speaks for itself. Due to the AI of SC2 being good, the basic stuff doesn't need so much babysitting anymore. Instead there should be more rewarding "babysitting" options... But without just being an extra APM-consuming tool, like "just make hardened shields an activated ability, so you have to spam it". I'm thinking stuff like blink (not just pure combat strenghtening and even in combat somewhat optional: you don't want to blink micro too hard, if you need your blink to chase opponents, and you don't want to blink everything into marauders...). Maybe some "flash out" ability to protect protoss casters, but with the downside of them not being useable for the next X seconds. Maybe some form of viking transformation "abuse" to avoid shots. Maybe an egg upgrade, that makes zerg units hide in highly armored eggs and block movement, when on creep.
d) explanations given
Final note: Of course everything has to be balanced out. But with HotS having a beta and a volatile phase anyways, there would be room for such changes without influencing WoL or professional play.
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.
I'd love to see an increase in difficulty without messing the games interface. For example, I think its too late to disable MBS or having no limit to grouping units.
Therefore, I would love to see more micro intensive unit or tasks. The inject mechanic is a cool one, the warp prism is another neat one.
Yes we do need the game to be harder.....atm it's noob friendly, really really easy from my point of view. Maybe it's just me as i've been playing BW for like 10+ years ^_^ so mechanics and everything it's just something natural and familiar...
The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
I wish people would stop making Brood War out to be the utter pinnacle of everything that SC2 can in no way ever compare to.
Let's think of a few other reasons besides "skill cap" and "difficulty" that BW isn't as popular...
Gaming was not as popular back when BW was released as it is now, I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying gaming has become more mainstream between BW and SC2. Second to that I don't remember any occasions, ever, where people have en masse gone out and bought a game that was released ten years ago. As an extra to that I don't think people these days are too enthralled by a game whose graphics look so utterly dated.
Yes starcraft players may understand what's going on and be able to get more from it but a casual person looking at BW is going to think, wow, this hasn't aged well.
Now, on to the "lack of skill" in SC2... BW has been out for a decade, that has given the game so much time to develop and become what it is today. SC2 has had nowhere near as much time but even then you only need to compare the games from GSL open seasons to the Blizzard Cup and GSL November finals to see how far the game has advanced in that relatively short time.
Being able to have your whole army on one hotkey may make one big battle easier but it still doesn't make multitasking easier. You still see players who are able to handle three or four engagements at once (such as MVP dropping multiple places simultaneously while fighting) be able to come out ahead of those who aren't able to multitask so well.
Given more time the skill shown in SC2 will only get higher and higher and until someone plays a 40 minute or so "perfect" game I don't think people can talk of a cap. Yes BW is "harder" due to no auto mining and 12 units to a hotkey max but it's also harder as it's been out for so long and has had strategies developed for it so completely. It's not like cheese and build order wins don't exist only in SC2...
What EVERYONE seems to ignore is that SC2 needs a very long time to mature. These comparisons are WAY too early in the game's life to matter.
I've been saying this for ages and nobody seems to listen. Just because the mechanics are easier does not mean that the skill ceiling is lower. In fact, it can allow for more strategic play.
Think about this: When protoss players started in the beta, it was basically "rush 1 base to colossus because colossus rapes everything". The game was quite simple even compared to now, and it took far less skill to 1 base colossus rush than it takes to play a competent build such as the FFE now.
The game needs time to progress and players need to work out how to use the new mechanics to their fullest potential because I can guarantee that 1aing an army into a payer who flanks you, FFs you just right, and uses warp prism micro to save units as well as warp reinforcements into the battle itself will NOT work. Sure, nobody has pulled a play of that caliber yet, but it's not impossible.
All the changes that make the game "easier" (Which I'd consider more as "more easily accessible") also make it easier to go beyond what unit control is possible in BW. The fact that we still collectively think that BW players can do things better than SC2 player just shows how far away we are from hitting that sort of skill level.
Giving players more direct influence in a game, that is, removing arbitrary barriers to that control, only opens things up for the truly genius players to find ways to take advantage of the new ability to more directly influence events, but we have yet to see players truly take advantage of that.
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
It's not proven that the SC2 success in the west comes from that. It's most likely just the fact it has been marketed on a larger scale as a game and eSport, and since we are way more superficial than asians we think graphic matters a lot. We can just make speculations but my eyes bleed whenever somebody take for granted that SC2 success is most likely given by the fact the game is easier than SCBW.
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
It's not proven that the SC2 success in the west comes from that. It's most likely just the fact it has been marketed on a larger scale as a game and eSport, and since we are way more superficial than asians we think graphic matters a lot. We can just make speculations but my eyes bleed whenever somebody take for granted that SC2 success is most likely given by the fact the game is easier than SCBW.
I think the players are and needs to be pushing the game harder not to change the game itself, yes you have the deathballs and easier macro but there are still some macro players that can just WOW you and not moving around in a deathball is more often then not a better choice. I don't think anyone is nowhere near the "skill cap" of this game and to change it radically to make it harder seems way to early for me.
Depends on what you mean. Harder by making units pathing bad, or harder by having a terrible UI, like SC:BW had, would completely suck. They obviously didn't want to make a BW:2, they wanted a new game which is still familiar to people having followed the BW scene. We are talking about this before even 1 of the 2 expansions have arrived. Should we discuss how balanced SC was before BW hit?
It's like comparing bigger muscles a fully grown man has compared to a baby, well almost u get the point )). SC2 is way more fun to watch, and thats alot due to the UI and information given to observers. Sure bw is fun to watch since it's so refined, but obviously SC2 will get more and more refined aswell.
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
It's not proven that the SC2 success in the west comes from that. It's most likely just the fact it has been marketed on a larger scale as a game and eSport, and since we are way more superficial than asians we think graphic matters a lot. We can just make speculations but my eyes bleed whenever somebody take for granted that SC2 success is most likely given by the fact the game is easier than SCBW.
As long as I see most progamers supply block, make macro and micro errors, I think the game is hard enough. Tough more micro options would be cool (especially for protoss and zerg, terran micro is hard enough imo).
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.
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.
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
There is a very important difference between "being easy to play" and "low skillcap". 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.
I don't think artificially limitting mechanics in order to make the game harder is the correct way for SC2 to go, but I do think that gradually increasing the skill cieling through more intelligent unit design choices, map choices and probably other stuff that I haven't considered would be the better way to do it. I'd love to be at a point where the game is harder to master at the top levels so that the top pro's at the moment can really distinguish themselves above and beyond the rest if they're sufficiently skilled.
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.
Seriously, Brood war mechanics are old and outdated, they are harder because they are shit by comparison and design.
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.)
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.
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.
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
It's not proven that the SC2 success in the west comes from that. It's most likely just the fact it has been marketed on a larger scale as a game and eSport, and since we are way more superficial than asians we think graphic matters a lot. We can just make speculations but my eyes bleed whenever somebody take for granted that SC2 success is most likely given by the fact the game is easier than SCBW.
Where does that come from?
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.
Whether or not BW and SC2 are harder/easier than each other and why that is is a moot point at this state I think, but I hope that they add some units that can stay active throughout the game (require constant micro!) like the reaver + shuttle combination in BW, similarly to the way terrans who use constant medivac drops throughout the game get far better results, this could add significantly to the skill cap of SC2 without changing any game mechanics whatsoever.
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?
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.
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.
All you guys who want the game harder, why aren't you winning roughly 50% of your games against all the other people who have hit this entirely fictional skill cap? Why are there any players better than you? The fact that any players can dominate the scene, the fact that Koreans dominate foreigners, should tell you that we have not hit a skill cap and are nowhere near hitting one.
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.
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.
uhm... Imagine for a second that the original SC has been released for Sega Genesis (Mega Drive). 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!)
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?
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.
starcraft 2 will never be as hard to get into as BW, no matter how high the skill ceiling gets in pro level play. So I cant think of a reason why it'd be bad if that happened
Just this very weekend, we had lots of people blown away by the numbers they read tuning in for IEM on the LoL stream, finding out just because it was the default stream. That game is easy even compared to SC2, yet it fascinates the masses (which eludes me, but it's nice that everybody can find something that makes him happy). 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.
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?
And it took two years between BW being released and BoxeR's dominance (I think, not too hot on bw history). Your point?
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.
I'd like to get it harder strategy-wise and mechanically, add more units controlling ground etc. . It should be possible to compensate for weak mechanics with good game sense and strategy and vice-versa. Broodwar was way too hard and mechanics was the dominating factor. Maybe weaken the strength of all-ins / cheese somewhat. One could introduce some more ground types, not just high/low ground. It would be interesting having terrain which slows down your units or kind of 'highways' which speed up or let the range of ranged units get cut in the forrest. Currently the only deciding difference inbetween maps is the distance between spawning points, position of expansions and chokes. It would be quite interesting if different maps favour different tech paths.
Yes the game should be more difficult but Blizzard will never make that happen.
On January 23 2012 21:40 Treziel wrote: All you guys who want the game harder, why aren't you winning roughly 50% of your games against all the other people who have hit this entirely fictional skill cap? Why are there any players better than you? The fact that any players can dominate the scene, the fact that Koreans dominate foreigners, should tell you that we have not hit a skill cap and are nowhere near hitting one.
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.
Because there's a difference between playing casually and playing the game professionally all day in a dedicated team house? No1 is claiming the skill cap is low enough for masters players to take games off MVP lol seriously this is one of the most retarded posts I've ever read.
No SC2 shouldn't be harder, unless you want the game to die off course.
BW is hard because the UI/control groups etc are terribly broken, which isn't too strange since the game is over 10 years old. We should be happy with the state SCII is in now. A hard game doesn't make it a good game and surely doesn't give it a big fanbase. Most people won't bother with a game that's too hard to be played properly on a casual level which at the end doesn't make the game a good E-sports game cuz it won't have people watching it :p
IF it is because its easier to play and cause of this more ppl play it and get involved I think that Blizzard should add more stuff that are hard to use but gives you a big lead over your opponent. So the sport itself could grow while there are still a lot of ppl who can play it without breaking their hands and wrists etc. Keep it simple in general but when you go deep ppl should be able to get more ahead by mechanics, knowledge, sense etc
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?
And it took two years between BW being released and BoxeR's dominance (I think, not too hot on bw history). Your point?
He is talking rubbish anyway, look at Flash's record in TLPD: Record: 472 wins - 189 losses (71.41%).
MVP's record in SC 2 for comparison: Record: 150 wins - 70 losses (68.18%) .
Achieving a winrate of around 70% vs the best of the best in either game is amazing, some people here seem to think that people regularly win 90%+ of their matches or that there are players in BW who are literally unbeatable.
On January 23 2012 21:46 Jakkerr wrote: No SC2 shouldn't be harder, unless you want the game to die off course.
BW is hard because the UI/control groups etc are terribly broken, which isn't too strange since the game is over 10 years old. We should be happy with the state SCII is in now. A hard game doesn't make it a good game and surely doesn't give it a big fanbase. Most people won't bother with a game that's too hard to be played properly on a casual level which at the end doesn't make the game a good E-sports game cuz it won't have people watching it :p
But being harder is what makes it worth watching it. It's not like you can ever really compete with LoL when it comes to casual-ness and lack of mechanical difficulty, and therefore popularity as well.
If that's really the direction a game needs to go in order to become "esports", then maybe esports isn't such a good idea in the first place. Why trade a good game for popularity and big audience? Not really worth it imo.
All this game really needs imo is a slightly bigger defenders advantage and more specialized units that reward smart players and good micro.
The first would remove most of the complaints of better players losing since coinflippy cheeses and rushes would be easier to deal with. The second would bring more skill elements into the lategame and just make the game more enjoyable to watch.
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.
I'd like to see this "added it all together" in some form of provable math. I'm not saying that you're wrong, exactly, but that until I see some uncontestable proof that BW is considerably harder as a whole than SC2, then I'm not buying it.
Mind you I completely understand and accept that this would be arguably suggestive proof, as some things are just harder than other things for different people.
Why do we even need the broodwar comparison? No automine and limited unit selection is a ridiculous way to make a game harder. Imagine having a game where you could only select one unit at a time and workers would only return minirals if you told them to..Would this be the ultimate game?
You could just say "Hey wouldn't it be cool if there were more units you could do more micro stuff with"
and then we would say "yes"
And then someone would point to HoTS and say "It looks like it's already coming"
And then we'd be like "Oh that's right! I guess we won't have to make threads about it and compare WoL to a game from the previous millenium all the time."
And you'd be like "Oh right! What was I thinking?"
Harder how? Mechanically it should become even easier if possible. There's no reason to limit someones ability to control the game and make that more difficult, that should be as easy as possible so that the game can evolve and reach out to a broader amount of people.
With better design, rather then making the design worse. The game will naturally gain more depth. Thing's that can improve are the units and the way they interact with each other, as talked about in those great "Philosophy of Design" threads.
On January 23 2012 21:40 Treziel wrote: All you guys who want the game harder, why aren't you winning roughly 50% of your games against all the other people who have hit this entirely fictional skill cap? Why are there any players better than you? The fact that any players can dominate the scene, the fact that Koreans dominate foreigners, should tell you that we have not hit a skill cap and are nowhere near hitting one.
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.
Because there's a difference between playing casually and playing the game professionally all day in a dedicated team house? No1 is claiming the skill cap is low enough for masters players to take games off MVP lol seriously this is one of the most retarded posts I've ever read.
Your total failure to understand logic astounds me. Compare all the top players playing in team houses right now. Are they all the same? Do they all win roughly 50% of their games against each other? No. There are some very good players who win roughly 70% of their games, and there are some terrible players who win 30% (or less). These people are all practicing, in the same environment, they are all pro. If the skill cap was so low, you'd expect them all to be roughly the same, and take 50% of the games of each other, and it would be very very rare for people to win successive tournaments. That isn't true. Perhaps you could provide some proof of this skill cap being hit? Or find some top professional players who think the skill cap is too low, or that the game is too easy?
We are seeing nowhere near perfect play from any of the pro players yet. There are still players that are getting supply blocked, still floating a high amount of minerals and/or gas, not multitasking well (i.e. someone does a drop and the units in said drop just stand around auto attacking). You also see some players not microing all too well (having infestors/ht's/ghosts on the same hotkey as the army and having them wander into the battle to die). As long as this still stands I don't think the game is easy. Easier to pick up does NOT mean that it is easier to master.
I quite don't get the SC2 bashing based on Starcraft 1. I just started playing SC1 again for funs and giggles and after playing SC2 it is just frustating. What I mean is the mechanics part. I select my units, it only gives me arbitrary, randomly 12 units among what I asked for. When I tell them to move HERE they either move THERE, OVERTHERE or not at all. And when they do try to move to HERE they bump into eachothers and lose their formation and so I have 5 units strayed from the group.
I am litterally playing against the UI 90% the time because I can't make my units do simple actions I asked them to do. Is this what pro-BW players mean by skills? Compensating for the bad UI/Mechanics? It's like riding a bicycle with a crooked handle, a flat tire and a jumping chain.
The simplicity of SC2's new UI made the game more accessible. Like anyone can play soccer because it's a net and a ball and simple rules.
But if you are taling about units design, I can't say I played BW seriously enough to have a decent opinion of SC2 vs SC:BW. Yes, SC2 has alot of Rock-Paper-Scissor elements in term of units but it only makes scouting and unit composition decisions even more important. I think we just need to give some time to the game, pros are just starting to find great strategies and style.
On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote: The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote: Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
There is absolutely nothing that can justify not making the workers go mine by themselves. It's an unnecessary inconvenience that artificially raises the difficulty of the game due to the game code being shitty.
I can agree with you on smartcast though, not having smartcast actually involves skill in unit positioning and actual micro.
Uh... HotS coming out "very soon"? Soon in relativity to SC2 taking 12 years from SC1? I'm not convinced we'll see HotS ever played in GSL or any major tourney. I'm 100% sure it'll take a year or so to evenly balance the game. And by then the third we'll be on the horizon.
On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote: The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
When I was still a sprog in 1997 my parents brought a Tiny PC. I've been a hardcore gamer ever since and I honestly have to say, this is by far the hardest game I've ever played online.
On other games, when you get good you can dominate. This isn't true for SC2 because of the matching system.
Often what people proclaim as making the game harder are aspects which increase its complexity, an increasingly complex game rewards those who spend a lot of time researching and playing the game. It rewards practice over inuition and talent. I suspect that is a very popular idea with the ex-bw players as they seem to have a mentality similar to WOW players (more time played = more sound knowledge of the complex game = more "skilled").
The game is complex enough at the top level, anyone who watched MMA play in the last few days at kiev can see that.
I would support making the game harder if it rewarded more profound play, but we kind of see that already in tournaments with mindgames between the best players. I'm sure scrubs will rage at MMA's 2 rax proxy but the strategies used over the set in the tournament and the selection of the next strategy is the complexity they are crying out for.
The game is already hard and complex, cries for more complexity are really just a whine from sore losers to create a game that grossly over-rewards practice and the people crying for these changes.
On January 23 2012 21:42 kazansky wrote: Just this very weekend, we had lots of people blown away by the numbers they read tuning in for IEM on the LoL stream, finding out just because it was the default stream. That game is easy even compared to SC2, yet it fascinates the masses (which eludes me, but it's nice that everybody can find something that makes him happy). 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.
Good post and a very interesting reference. Since i hace read a couple of books about the history of football, i ll search for an English version.
On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote: The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
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.
Under that logic there must not be a skill cap in BW, last I checked Flash and Jaedong have rather retarded high w/l.
On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote: The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
I like it hard.
I think nothing can be added, this topic is through. Refer to this post for all further questions.
This OP is too simplistic. SC2 needs to be easier on some things and harder on others. Just saying this game needs to be harder is stupid.
On this thread people came to the conclusion that indeed things compared to BW die too fast. Either time should be slowed down, or bonus reduced. The time one has to micro during battle is very little. Also considering how it's ball vs ball, there are even more stuff than in BW to micro for a shorter period of time, and most likely the game will be decided then. Automaton showed us time and time again how hard it is for a human to micro well in SC2. Tell me you can do that, and i'll agree then you reached SC2 skill ceiling and it needs to be higher, otherwise, no, in this regard SC2 needs to be easier.
What needs to change, however, is the design of the units themselves and the gameplay, not to make this game harder but for it to be hard in the right places.
On the one hand I think it's stupid to have to do monkey like actions like the ones required on BW, that makes it harder but also more boring, and less appealing to other people, and also makes it indeed look like a nerd game for those who care. In that regard it's a very good thing that SC2 has automatized a lot of that boring mechanical stuff. Without it, for sure a lot of newcomers would just label it as stupidly hard and quit, and your favourite game wouldn't have an audience and neither would it grow.
On the other hand we could have for instance, like argumented on this thread, better defending options so players don't need to focus on balls, and turtling but constant multi-pronged attacks, which will kill two birds in one shot, making it harder and more intersting at the same time, which is want we want.
As another change, luck should be less of a factor on openings, making games decided based on blind counters, which i feel is also related to the previous point, because the defender's advantage is so little, a player that had bad luck on his opening, can't really do anything to protect himself, and the game is decided before it really got interesting.
On January 23 2012 22:00 Sated wrote: BW is hard to play because getting units to do what you want is a struggle with the AI/UI. This struggle shouldn't exist. People in 2012 don't want to be fighting against the AI/UI of a game in order to do what they want to do, they want to be fighting against their opponent, and if I am watching a pro-level game then I want to see two players competing with each other - not with the AI/UI
Competition without difficulty of control is absolutely meaningless. It would come down only to strategy and decision making.
Some of the best games historically have been games that are difficult to control. It doesn't need to be Brood War, or even an RTS game.
Take platformers or fighting games or old FPS games, any game that is worth competing in will make it extremely difficult for you to execute something you want to do. Good games will either make it so that you have to hit an extremely tight timings, have almost pixel-perfect accuracy, be extremely fast and have great reflexes, have a great memory under pressure, multitasking, etc. In other words, good games must stress one (and preferably more) of general human skills.
RTS's only way of accomplishing this level of difficulty is to make it so that you have to put in A LOT of physical actions to do what you want to do, and make it so that how good you are in a game depends on your speed and multitasking. There is no way to make an RTS game challenging other than limiting the level of control you have over your in-game assets, and keeping them very basic.
It's all about design. An RTS game where you can only have ONE thing (one building or one unit) selected at any point in time wouldn't necessarily be worse than SC2 because of that specific feature. Things like this don't make a game better or worse, they make games different. Higher level of control reduces human factor in gameplay. For a game designed to be competitive, it only makes sense to keep the controls as low level as possible. Problem with Blizzard is that they also want to sell the game as a casual title, but that's a whole different topic.
Too many people are stuck in bronze league because it is so hard. More than 50% of all players are in bronze! You have to click buildings and click men to make them and then sometimes when you look back at your army it is gone because your opponent attacked you! Do you think this is fair? That people cannot be master just because they don't play computer games all day? The game should be easier so everybody can participate.
Everybody can play tennis, it should be the same with computer games.
On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote: The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
I like it hard.
Post of the week
LOL ! Post of the Month !
I feel like every second post in this thread is like this, just a little bit more vague. e.g "I'd like this game to be harder, more fun and more entertaining than it is now but i actually have no idea what i mean with this sentence so i'll just leave this here. SC2 is for noobs!!"
On January 23 2012 22:14 Apolo wrote: As another change, luck should be less of a factor on openings, making games decided based on blind counters, which i feel is also related to the previous point, because the defender's advantage is so little, a player that had bad luck on his opening, can't really do anything to protect himself, and the game is decided before it really got interesting.
An early scouting unit from the CC/Nexus/Hatchery would be a good development. Make it easily countered by tier 1.5, but able to get past the wall-offs from terrans/protoss.
On January 23 2012 22:00 Sated wrote: BW is hard to play because getting units to do what you want is a struggle with the AI/UI. This struggle shouldn't exist. People in 2012 don't want to be fighting against the AI/UI of a game in order to do what they want to do, they want to be fighting against their opponent, and if I am watching a pro-level game then I want to see two players competing with each other - not with the AI/UI
Competition without difficulty of control is absolutely meaningless. It would come down only to strategy and decision making.
Some of the best games historically have been games that are difficult to control. It doesn't need to be Brood War, or even an RTS game.
Take platformers or fighting games or old FPS games, any game that is worth competing in will make it extremely difficult for you to execute something you want to do. Good games will either make it so that you have to hit an extremely tight timings, have almost pixel-perfect accuracy, be extremely fast and have great reflexes, have a great memory under pressure, multitasking, etc. In other words, good games must stress one (and preferably more) of general human skills.
RTS's only way of accomplishing this level of difficulty is to make it so that you have to put in A LOT of physical actions to do what you want to do, and make it so that how good you are in a game depends on your speed and multitasking. There is no way to make an RTS game challenging other than limiting the level of control you have over your in-game assets, and keeping them very basic.
That wasn't his point at all. He wasn't saying it shouldn't be hard to control your army perfectly or that it shouldn't matter what your control is like compared to your opponents, he was saying that the user interface and artificial intelligence of the units shouldn't make the control artificially difficult, like the dragoon AI. If I right click somewhere for a unit to move there, and there's an open pathway to that location, I should expect the unit to actually move there, not dance in circles like a chicken with its head cut off. If I'm micro'ing a reaver to get a shot off at the enemy mineral line in such a way as to have it fire and hit about 6 scv's, it would suck really hard to have all that effort go to waste because the scarab bugs out and misfires.
The difficulty shouldn't come from bugs and bad game design. If we look at the state of gameplay at the moment, how many players are splitting marines vs. siege tanks in TvT like Thorzain does? How about MMA's play: how many people can keep up with his multitasking and control, and don't even act like he's hit the so called 'skill cap' yet. Any time you watch a pro game, if you know what you're doing you can probably point out at least half a dozen mistakes over the course of the match.
On January 23 2012 22:14 Apolo wrote: As another change, luck should be less of a factor on openings, making games decided based on blind counters, which i feel is also related to the previous point, because the defender's advantage is so little, a player that had bad luck on his opening, can't really do anything to protect himself, and the game is decided before it really got interesting.
An early scouting unit from the CC/Nexus/Hatchery would be a good development. Make it easily countered by tier 1.5, but able to get past the wall-offs from terrans/protoss.
How about we remove the fog of war entirely so the players have always perfect information?
New convoluted ways of scouting are not needed. Just make the defenders advantage more meaningful, for example by returning the cliff advantage from BW.
The reason why people want the game to be more difficult, is because at the moment, it seems that good players are not rewarded nearly as much. The impression seems to be that in Brood War, Flash would dominate nearly anybody in a BoX, but in Starcraft 2, it is more likely that MVP would drop more games in a similar situation to a player much worse than him.
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.
Under that logic there must not be a skill cap in BW, last I checked Flash and Jaedong have rather retarded high w/l.
Exactly.
Point being: if only a few people worldwide can achieve those kinds of win rates at the very top level, why does the game need to be made any harder?
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: Ease of gameplay and just being able to '1A' to victory, rather than selecting 12 units at a time to attack, has sparked a universal debate that will most likely go on for a long time still.
Another thread that starts off with some failed perception of what BW-players want to improve about SC2. What the fuck are you thinking OP?? You are making SC2 only players think we want to go back to max 12-unit control to make the game artificially harder, but we BW ARE NOT TRYING TO SAY THIS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.
This is the exact fucking reason we always get into these threads where the SC2 only generation players think we BW players want SC2 to be artificially harder. Seriously cut this shit out you are misleading the fuck outta people. No one fucking wants SC2 to be exactly like BW, we want certain aspects of the game of BW to improve SC2 (zone control units, less extreme-hardcounter units, more microable units, and keep the addition of new spells to a minimum [spamming spells vs spells is not micro, this is wow]). Watching BW was epic because of the level of micro involved, the battles that weren's just deathball vs deathball, it made things dynamic and epic to WATCH. We don't need to have 12-unit max control to achieve this.
BW was a great fucking game, but NOBODY wants SC2 to be BW2.0, we want less 1a vs 1a deathballs, but not by making it 12-unit max control. IDIOT.
P.S. mod please lock this stupid ass thread for causing more misperception from the new generation of SC2-only players that don't understand what BW-players want to change about SC2.
I will accept the ban, cause im directly insulting the OP for starting this bull shit, and off on a totally incorrect note.
People really can't grasp why broodwar is harder aswell and explain it diligently.
They take mechanics when it isn't really that different. Besides automining (Which is just such a shitty argument) you have added mechanics to sc2 like mules/larva etc. AND NOT ONE is really close to perfection in this part. People even at the highest level still miss larva injects, tumors, mules, supply blockage.
You think this game is close to perfection in execution? The gameplay we have seen is terrible. But in time it will mature.
Everyone have apm to burn, and everyone can do things betters. There are players who are dominating the scene like mvp's tvt or nesteas zvz, or polts zvp. However the problem people are losing is also that everyone is contending for first place. There are tons of incredible players in both code b, code a and code s.
Jaedong just recently lost to flash in like 7 minutes because he made a mistake and didn't get sunkens. That happens all the time in broodwar. Flash wether or not you like it, still loses games.
The reason you don't feel the hardships is because you don't feel it til you get to top 50 grandmasters mmr. Then more and more everygame feels epic and very multitasking consuming, especially on korean server.
I love destiny's quote on it when he talked about his ladder experience on stream and how everygame feels like one has to work for it.
To not get started on MICRO, stuff had firepower in broodwar aswell - SIEGE TANKS JUST KILLED EVERYTHING - Reavers just demolished shit. etc. etc. People say shit balls up too easily and everything just dies. Well for the first, battles finished quickly in broodwar, it was just the insane macro behind it. DRG vs MMA is a good example of bw esque feeling with battles going on constantly. But to go back to balling up. There is insane aoe in this game, you think its GOOD for stuff to ball up constantly? Its a fucking nightmare to micro and get perfection.
Sc2 will be when the game has evolved enough, in maps, strategies, execution, tactics, macro, micro, builds - just as hard as broodwar. People just have assumptions.
On January 23 2012 22:14 Apolo wrote: As another change, luck should be less of a factor on openings, making games decided based on blind counters, which i feel is also related to the previous point, because the defender's advantage is so little, a player that had bad luck on his opening, can't really do anything to protect himself, and the game is decided before it really got interesting.
An early scouting unit from the CC/Nexus/Hatchery would be a good development. Make it easily countered by tier 1.5, but able to get past the wall-offs from terrans/protoss.
How about we remove the fog of war entirely so the players have always perfect information?
New convoluted ways of scouting are not needed. Just make the defenders advantage more meaningful, for example by returning the cliff advantage from BW.
There's nothing wrong with fog of war, but there either needs to be a way to keep tabs on your opponent early game or building restrictions (i.e. only x many tiles from a command center or nexus with proxy pylons being an upgrade from the nexus). I've personally come close to quitting this game several times because of the sheer retardness of being able to build in your opponents backyard.
Imagine it, it's 1942 and Hitler receives a phone call from his chief nuclear scientist "herr hitler, we cannot build the nuclear research facility in Hanover because the British have built an engineering bay there. Our project is delayed by 1 minute". I don't mind early game harass but proxy building and denying scouting so easily are broken mechanics. The game is made artifically hard by the very strong paper/scissors/rock play and lack of scouting.
Scouting needs to be improved early game and then cut off mid-game to allow players to surprise each other without insta-gg'ing the game. Poor scouting mechanics and very hard counter units lead to poor gameplay.
As a noob, with no BW experience, I don't think I want the game to be harder.
Having automine / smartcast lowers the "bullshit tolerance" prerequisite of players AND makes the game more fun. So I can't understand why they would take it out.
Seriously though, adding macro difficulty just takes more apm / attention from things that are actually enjoyable, and are actually part of the game (i.e. strategy and execution). Macro isn't part of the game - it's just something you have to do - like getting a Battle.net account.
Also, anyone who says that just macro can take you to masters clearly hasn't had to try working their way up lately. You'll lose to anyone with a basic grasp of strategy / execution - and that's great, because it's a strategy game!
HOTS will have some cool new units and strategies. That's awesome. But I doubt that anyone (even pros) can actually say that they're doing everything they would like to at the moment.
yes the game should be harder...and no im not speaking about things that are in bw like 12 unit selection! there must be other ways like new units, maps, strategies...
I'd like to see them game be a bit harder. When I played BW it was so completely obvious how the players were 100x more talented and fast than I was. In SC2 a professional game doesn't look far and away different or higher level than a masters league game.
On the other hand, I think making the game harder would all but eliminate the chances of foreign players from winning major and international tournaments.
On January 23 2012 22:39 TRAP[yoo] wrote: yes the game should be harder...and no im not speaking about things that are in bw like 12 unit selection! there must be other ways like new units, maps, strategies...
To me the unlimited building/unit selection is the only real tangible difference from BW that makes the game so much easier (along with smartcasting/deathballs)
I would just like to be awarded when I have better mechanics and apm than my opponent. A prime example of this is TvP which is really unfair for one side when it comes to the multitasking and apm, you gotta drop, control that drop to snipe tech and save the dropship, at the same time control your army and not get owned by forcefields, micro from forcefields, kite chargelots, dodge storms, make bionic, make vikings/dropships, scvs, add depos and rax yeah you know how it goes. Even if you do all this the Protoss player can just roll over you. How often don't you get beaten in TvP by someone with like 80-120 apm that just sit and build things whole game while you have over 200 apm to just keep up with everything?
Thats why ZvT is such a great matchup because it's so fair on this part and the better player can actually punish you for having better mechanics. I don't know how this is in ZvP, is it like TvP or is it like TvZ?
On January 23 2012 22:34 Facultyadjutant wrote: [...] Everyone have apm to burn, and everyone can do things betters. There are players who are dominating the scene like mvp's tvt or nesteas zvz, or polts zvp. However the problem people are losing is also that everyone is contending for first place. There are tons of incredible players in both code b, code a and code s. [...]
The question isn't whether we should make StarCraft II harder to play. The question is whether or not it should be more fun to play. And right now, I can't think of any Blizzard strategy game other than Warcraft: Orcs and Humans that is less fun to play than StarCraft II. (Which is not to knock on StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, which is a good real-time strategy game, but it's a firm notch below the best real-time strategy games ever made, a number of which were developed by Blizzard, a number developed by other companies.) As it stands right now, the the game only has a hand-me-down tournament scene to thank for its potential as a long-term competitive game and a figurehead for the genre.
Honestly, I don't think that we have seen anyone reach the skill cap of the game yet. mvp, nestea, mc, drg, are all good, but they are not perfect. I think that if someone does start playing perfect, we will need to make the game more difficult in some way, although i'm not sure what one would define as "more difficult".
Alas, this thread is largely pointless as I highly doubt Blizzard will ever make any basic mechanical changes to how SC2 works. Its a game where a large portion of the casual population find any sort of multiplayer play highly intimidating (ladder fear, overwhelmed by strategies, etc). Blizzard see these people shy away from playing and would want to make the game easier if anything. When they see LoL pulling in so much numbers due to its model of removing most of the "non-fun" (which dumb down the game and remove a lot of fun IMO) elements of DotA, being f2p and fairly easy to get into, they will undoubtedly be thinking on how to follow that model.
TL;DR - Blizzard will never implement any of the suggestions in this thread, like they never implemented 99% of the requests in Beta.
On January 23 2012 22:47 Gosi wrote: I would just like to be awarded when I have better mechanics and apm than my opponent. A prime example of this is TvP which is really unfair for one side when it comes to the multitasking and apm, you gotta drop, control that drop to snipe tech and save the dropship, at the same time control your army and not get owned by forcefields, micro from forcefields, kite chargelots, dodge storms, make bionic, make vikings/dropships, scvs, add depos and rax yeah you know how it goes. Even if you do all this the Protoss player can just roll over you. How often don't you get beaten in TvP by someone with like 80-120 apm that just sit and build things whole game while you have over 200 apm to just keep up with everything?
Thats why ZvT is such a great matchup because it's so fair on this part and the better player can actually punish you for having better mechanics. I don't know how this is in ZvP, is it like TvP or is it like TvZ?
Under that logic there must not be a skill cap in BW, last I checked Flash and Jaedong have rather retarded high w/l.
Same W/L ratio as MVP, so you can pick, either:
#1: Both games do not have a significant skill cap, in which case comparing SC2 to BW in terms of skill is pointless as they both have no skill cap high enough #2: Both games have a significant skill cap, in which case this thread is pointless #3: SC2 is so new we don't know whether or not there is a high skill cap as it has not been close to reached yet, therefore this thread is pointless and pure speculation
The Game was harder back then, because RTS games were quite young back then. Today RTS-Genre has developed alot and a game, thats how blizz designs a game: On the current standards.
On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote: The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
I like it hard.
This post did in fact make my day! :L I thinks it's good where it is. Stopping auto mine and reverting back to the 12 units per hotkey would be stupid and although that has made the game easier, I think it was needed to keep the game moving with the times. Its also very easy to compare a game that has had a very short stay in the esports spotlight with a game such as BW which has had a ten year tenure in the scene and has had so much time to mature. Saying all this, more micro intensive units would be cool as I actually have a lot of fun when micro'ing :D
On January 23 2012 22:47 Gosi wrote: I would just like to be awarded when I have better mechanics and apm than my opponent. A prime example of this is TvP which is really unfair for one side when it comes to the multitasking and apm, you gotta drop, control that drop to snipe tech and save the dropship, at the same time control your army and not get owned by forcefields, micro from forcefields, kite chargelots, dodge storms, make bionic, make vikings/dropships, scvs, add depos and rax yeah you know how it goes. Even if you do all this the Protoss player can just roll over you. How often don't you get beaten in TvP by someone with like 80-120 apm that just sit and build things whole game while you have over 200 apm to just keep up with everything?
Thats why ZvT is such a great matchup because it's so fair on this part and the better player can actually punish you for having better mechanics. I don't know how this is in ZvP, is it like TvP or is it like TvZ?
I can totally relate to this. That's why I do mostly 1-1-1. But then again when I stop to think about it, where is the fun? Doing the same allin everytime gets really boring. The problem is I get frustrated either way, losing to a lesser player or allining everytime. Hopefully they'll make mech viable in TvP in HOTS and this won't be an issue anymore.
Under that logic there must not be a skill cap in BW, last I checked Flash and Jaedong have rather retarded high w/l.
Same W/L ratio as MVP, so you can pick, either:
#1: Both games do not have a significant skill cap, in which case comparing SC2 to BW in terms of skill is pointless as they both have no skill cap high enough #2: Both games have a significant skill cap, in which case this thread is pointless #3: SC2 is so new we don't know whether or not there is a high skill cap as it has not been close to reached yet, therefore this thread is pointless and pure speculation
The system changes including unlimited unit selection, MBS, auto-mining, unit pathing, custom hotkeys, etc.; are completely 100% fine and make sense for the game. However SC2 sort of failed in its unit creation for the races and unit-vs-unit counter logic which ruins the utility of units and creates units with 1a syndrome(maruader, roach, colossus, etc) and leaves certain unit roles very limited(raven, viking, carrier, etc).
I think the future of the game depends on how Blizzard handles its new units and the current units. From the looks of the new units they understand that.
On January 23 2012 22:47 Gosi wrote: I would just like to be awarded when I have better mechanics and apm than my opponent. A prime example of this is TvP which is really unfair for one side when it comes to the multitasking and apm, you gotta drop, control that drop to snipe tech and save the dropship, at the same time control your army and not get owned by forcefields, micro from forcefields, kite chargelots, dodge storms, make bionic, make vikings/dropships, scvs, add depos and rax yeah you know how it goes. Even if you do all this the Protoss player can just roll over you. How often don't you get beaten in TvP by someone with like 80-120 apm that just sit and build things whole game while you have over 200 apm to just keep up with everything?
Thats why ZvT is such a great matchup because it's so fair on this part and the better player can actually punish you for having better mechanics. I don't know how this is in ZvP, is it like TvP or is it like TvZ?
Altought I'd like to be awarded for having better mechanics as well, I feel the exact opposite in PvT. Maybe that's because I play toss but it looks to me like it's so much easier for T... just press T and kite = win. When the storm comes, keep kiting... it's not like the HT will ever catch up with stimmed MM anyways... now for the P player there's a lot to do... first of all u need to keep ur zealots in front of ur army, which is a pain in itself seeing that the friggin melee meatshield of the army is slower than pretty much everything else (bring speedlots back plz blizz). You also need to worry about position 100% of the time seeing that FFs are much weaker in the open field. Also you need to babysit the HT so they dont get behind/die/get emp... looks like a lot of shit to me. Dropping is not that hard as well, seriously.
Regarding the macro aspect: it's not like we dont have to build structures and stuff right? And chronoboost.
Altought I'd like to be awarded for having better mechanics as well, I feel the exact opposite in PvT. Maybe that's because I play toss but it looks to me like it's so much easier for T... just press T and kite = win. When the storm comes, keep kiting... it's not like the HT will ever catch up with stimmed MM anyways... now for the P player there's a lot to do... first of all u need to keep ur zealots in front of ur army, which is a pain in itself seeing that the friggin melee meatshield of the army is slower than pretty much everything else (bring speedlots back plz blizz). You also need to worry about position 100% of the time seeing that FFs are much weaker in the open field. Also you need to babysit the HT so they dont get behind/die/get emp... looks like a lot of shit to me. Dropping is not that hard as well, seriously.
Regarding the macro aspect: it's not like we dont have to build structures and stuff right? And chronoboost.
Gave me a good laugh. protoss is so hard i have to like keep my zealots in front of my army and a move, so much harder than the 30 actions kiting requires the other 10 or so droppin. come on if your gonna make an argument make it plausible
I don't get the whole skill cap argument, and I think it's pure nostalgia from BW fans (I never followed it competitively, but played a LOT with my friends when I was younger).
You could make some argument that the skill cap in SC2 was lower and that the game was too easy if people weren't constantly making mistakes. But you'll hear Tastosis, in every game, for every player, mention more than a handful of instances where Player X should have done this instead of that, or if he hadn't made that fatal blunder he would have won the game. Until players are playing perfectly (they're not), I don't think you can argue that the skill cap is too low.
Think about it. With MBS, Smart-casting, larger unit-selection hotkeys, etc. what are these players spending their 200+ APM on? Is it spam? Well no wonder they're still making critical mistakes. Theoretically (I say theoretically because I don't think anyone is doing this yet), if the best of the best aren't tied up using half of their actions just to keep their base running and their units together and behaving like they want them to, they should have many more resources available to perform sick Marine splits, stagger units against Colossi, drop in 3 places at once, etc. etc.. Why don't we see it, then, except from the best of players? The game is still young.
Until you see MVP play perfectly and lose to some no-name B-teamer, you can't say that skill doesn't matter. And until players make a LOT less mistakes than they currently are, you can't say that the skill cap is too low.
I feel that it is way too early to have this kind of discussion about the game since I honestly doubt we are even near the skillcap that SC2 has. I don't see any point continuing this discussion until we have reached that point other than just venting off how SC2 sucks being a hard game compared to BW.
Most people compare the current state of BW with the current state of SC2. This is very unfair: keep in mind that SC2 is less than 2 years old, and BW is about 13 years old. Just remember the state of BW back in 2000... Most people back then weren't even using hotkeys, and nobody was even remotely aware how complex the game will be and how skillful BW pros will be a decade later.
So why do people think they can talk about complexity of another, much younger game, which still has 2 expansions to be released? Sure, the game seems easier now, but maybe, in 10 years, when strategies evolve and players get more skilled, it will turn out that SC2: LoV is a much more complex game than SC:BW... Maybe not regarding mechanics, but maybe in some other aspect. Do not quickly assume that complex, noob-unfriendly mechanics are necessary for a complex and difficult game - it is a very non-trivial question which, I think, in case of SC2, only time will answer (I'm guessing maybe 2 or 3 years from now).
SC2 is not BW, it is a very young game which grows in complexity and will continue to do so. And it grows very quickly, much more quickly than BW grew when it was less than 2 years old... Remember SC2 Beta and how ridiculous strategies were back then? That was less than 2 years ago... Just enjoy the relatively simplistic childhood of this wonderful game and watch it grow into a worthy successor of BW...
On January 23 2012 23:22 HarryKC wrote: Most people compare the current state of BW with the current state of SC2. This is very unfair: keep in mind that SC2 is less than 2 years old, and BW is about 13 years old. Just remember the state of BW back in 2000... Most people back then weren't even using hotkeys, and nobody was even remotely aware how complex the game will be and how skillful BW pros will be a decade later.
So why do people think they can talk about complexity of another, much younger game, which still has 2 expansions to be released? Sure, the game seems easier now, but maybe, in 10 years, when strategies evolve and players get more skilled, it will turn out that SC2: LoV is a much more complex game than SC:BW... Maybe not regarding mechanics, but maybe in some other aspect. Do not quickly assume that complex, noob-unfriendly mechanics are necessary for a complex and difficult game - it is a very non-trivial question which, I think, in case of SC2, only time will answer.
SC2 is not BW, it is a very young game which grows in complexity and will continue to do so. And it grows very quickly, much more quickly than BW grew when it was less than 2 years old... Remember SC2 Beta and how ridiculous strategies were back then? That was less than 2 years ago... Just enjoy the relatively simplistic childhood of this wonderful game and watch it grow into a worthy successor of BW...
I got nothing against the game except for some of the units. To be honest, BW demanded a sense of subtlety that's so hard to find with SC2. It seems to be just about that perfect unit comp. I don't get a sense of minute detail and precision that can radically change the way the game is played. I'm nervous for HOTS mostly because of the new units they want to introduce, that does some cool stuff, but is just that, flashy.
On January 23 2012 23:22 HarryKC wrote: Most people compare the current state of BW with the current state of SC2. This is very unfair: keep in mind that SC2 is less than 2 years old, and BW is about 13 years old. Just remember the state of BW back in 2000... Most people back then weren't even using hotkeys, and nobody was even remotely aware how complex the game will be and how skillful BW pros will be a decade later.
So why do people think they can talk about complexity of another, much younger game, which still has 2 expansions to be released? Sure, the game seems easier now, but maybe, in 10 years, when strategies evolve and players get more skilled, it will turn out that SC2: LoV is a much more complex game than SC:BW... Maybe not regarding mechanics, but maybe in some other aspect. Do not quickly assume that complex, noob-unfriendly mechanics are necessary for a complex and difficult game - it is a very non-trivial question which, I think, in case of SC2, only time will answer.
SC2 is not BW, it is a very young game which grows in complexity and will continue to do so. And it grows very quickly, much more quickly than BW grew when it was less than 2 years old... Remember SC2 Beta and how ridiculous strategies were back then? That was less than 2 years ago... Just enjoy the relatively simplistic childhood of this wonderful game and watch it grow into a worthy successor of BW...
I got nothing against the game except for some of the units. To be honest, BW demanded a sense of subtlety that's so hard to find with SC2. It seems to be just about that perfect unit comp. I don't get a sense of minute detail and precision that can radically change the way the game is played. I'm nervous for HOTS mostly because of the new units they want to introduce, that does some cool stuff, but is just that, flashy.
That subtly to each of the units is something I would wager is almost impossible to reproduce unless you were doing a straight up remake of SC:BW T_T
On January 23 2012 23:26 xXFireandIceXx wrote: I got nothing against the game except for some of the units. To be honest, BW demanded a sense of subtlety that's so hard to find with SC2. It seems to be just about that perfect unit comp. I don't get a sense of minute detail and precision that can radically change the way the game is played. I'm nervous for HOTS mostly because of the new units they want to introduce, that does some cool stuff, but is just that, flashy.
Remember how crappy mech felt back in BW before people realised they can micro vultures? There was a time nobody used vultures and, a few years later, a time when almost every terran used them. What makes you think we know our SC2 units so well we can say there is no subtlety?
I think it is reasonable to assume that the best code s pros today would get completely owned by an average ladder player from 2015.
I think the game is too much strategy dependent at the moment, not so much on execution and actually skill level, so yes, I would like the game to become a bit harder, so the best players can dominate, not the ones that got lucky with a build order win.
What the heck kind of OP is this? Titles it, "Should the game be harder?" and then the first paragraph states that this thread is explicitly not about whether the game should be harder. And then the OP ends with a poll, asking if you think the game should be harder.
On January 23 2012 23:20 Yorbon wrote: When I look at code s, I realise the skill ceiling hasn't been reached.
There won't ever be a point where some player achieves the near perfect skill to pla the game. Sure at some point there is possible play the game at seemingly perfect level, but there is always room for improvement.
I like the ease of accessibility of SC2 mechanics but I definitely understand the skill cap argument. I would think that there would be a way to both keep the ease of entry we have with SC2 and increase the skill cap (which has not been touched yet imo). I think that smart casting, MBS, auto-mining etc. are no brainers today. No one would play the game without these except pros and masochists. Still, there should be units/abilities that when used at the highest level reward the player who does have the multi-tasking ability to use them correctly.
I don't understand why people keep saying SC2 is easy. Just because the control scheme is easier doesn't mean the game is easy. Battle speed and the importance of solid map awareness and tactical decision making
Then again, I still haven't seen any player play SC2 as well as I've seen jaedong play BW, a much more awkward and mechanically demanding game. Once BW pros start playing this may become a more obviously valid point.
I don't. Perhaps increase the skill ceilling, but don't increase the skillcap to enjoy the game. You're just gonna discourage more people to play our game, and they will go play something else.
By choosing wisely the possible answers you can easily manipulate the outcome of a statistic. In this case here it's not even possible to choose an option like "no the game is too hard already" or "it could be even a little bit easier". While I am personally fine with it and play at a high enough level for most people it won't (facts are simply that most people are not high masters+ but actually bronze etc, I recall saying Dustin Browder once around 80% of players are in bronze; while in fact only exactly 20% of all active accounts count towards bronze once you didn't play for 4-5 days your account counts as inactive hence why the majority is bronze in reality).
I personally would like to see adjusted options to choose from, otherwise the only possible outcome will obviously be "yes it should get harder" more or less (people who find it too hard will have to choose "It should stay at around the same level").
Apart from that I think most experienced players and especially pro's will always be in fond od adding more depth and possibilities into the game so they can outplay their opponent more easily if the skillgap is there as well as reducing the so-called "luck-factor" (bo losses for instance). However, I firmly believe that playing success in a good rts game should not be based on "can i box my units quickly enough often enough because there is a stupid 12 units maximum unit selection" but rather enhanced possibilities to micro for instance. Applying bonus dmg to certain units makes focus fire more important, charging up units like voids, microing the special aoe format of hellions ... the more unique units and their abilities become the more an experienced player with good mechanics and control can perform. I think most people would prefer watching a high level korean micro hiss ass off with 300+average apm by for example microing 20 hellions at the same time and getting always perfect aoe volleys of by positioning them correctly instead of watching them using their 300apm to box 100 lings to amove around. What is so exciting about useless clicks? That's at least the way I understood the OP, because SC2 provides easier game mechanics. All those extra clicks in SC:BW did however add nothing at all to strategy or game knowledge. Awsome micro can be done without not being able to select more than 12 units at a time or being able to hotkey different buildings together or ralleying your workers to mineral patches for auto mining.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
I don't believe this game has a low skillcap, just that everybody is far from reaching it. I still see progamers, even in korea, do stupid fundamental mistakes they shouldn't do, engaging with chargelots behind stalkers etc.
The main concern with sc2 is that good players lose to randoms, I just say the metagame hasn't stabilized and there is no build (yet) which is decent/good against everything which causes coinflip losses. It's a metagame issue.
On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote: Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
Yeah, because putting EVERY probe you make on minerals and clicking on every building you have to make one unit is SO much more fun.
Automine and MBS is fun because it removes focus from stupid artificial over-the-top mechanical barriers to become decent and enjoy the game but to become good, there are still many strategial and tactical things you have to learn. Also mechanically, this game still isn't easy. Come back when you don't do any macro mistakes and I'll admit youre right.
On January 23 2012 23:50 EternaLLegacy wrote: I'll tell you what.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
BW being hard doesn't suddenly make SC2 easy. Learn to logic bro.
On January 23 2012 23:51 imperator-xy wrote: continue to get harder? as far as i know its getting easier because some "bugs" which are good for the game are getting fixed
making it harder makes it better for those that have aspects that are better in the speed category. i myself am a very fast player who cant really make use of my speed in certain situations. i dont like getting beat by luck or 1 bad fight and id rather have the game be harder to offset these issues
less people would play and it would be less popular but what can you do. i wish there was a sc2 bw mode and a sc2 normal mode. make the BW mode same control style as bw and let that be ladder.
The micro should be much harder. If macro and micro are too easy to master then they are few things left you can be better at. in a couple of year the game understanding could already be maxed out and even before that.
Seige tank, Psystorm, lurkers in BW are much much much better aoe than SC2, it is a blessing that BW units don't clump up because of the bad and clunky old UI. On the other hand, SC2 mechanic just automatically clump units up, so it's another battle to try to spread out your units.
Ball vs Ball is just the result of the UI. If BW had clump-up mechanic like SC2, we would have seen way more ball vs ball than in SC2. RIght now we all know that clumping up units is bad in every possible way. If 2 sides have equal army force engage, the one with least clump up units will almost win, yet we almost never see current pro doing that consistently. TLDR, SC2 pro have to fight against good mechanic in years to come too.
On January 23 2012 23:47 turnip wrote: I don't understand why people keep saying SC2 is easy. Just because the control scheme is easier doesn't mean the game is easy. Battle speed and the importance of solid map awareness and tactical decision making
Then again, I still haven't seen any player play SC2 as well as I've seen jaedong play BW, a much more awkward and mechanically demanding game. Once BW pros start playing this may become a more obviously valid point.
I don't know why people think "BW pros" would automatically be the gods of SC2. What allows Flash, Jaedong and Bisu play as well as they do is years of metagame development and years of training. Obviously BW wasn't figured out 1 year after its release, so why would SC2 be? They are just guys who have had all this stuff to work with, not some superhuman beings.
I can assure you that there are already people playing SC2 that have the potential to reach the same level of refinement that current BW pros have. Its simply a matter of time, let the game mature first.
On January 23 2012 23:20 Yorbon wrote: When I look at code s, I realise the skill ceiling hasn't been reached.
There won't ever be a point where some player achieves the near perfect skill to pla the game. Sure at some point there is possible play the game at seemingly perfect level, but there is always room for improvement.
lets talk about making sc2 harder when someone reaches the skill ceiling (which means their apm would drop on 0 because they done anything that is possible). My opinion is that sc2 is harder because of the increased speed and ai, where you have to make decisions faster then in bw, to compensate the mechanics got easier which are the easiest part to train.
Might just be me but i always feel i have more time in bw. And with HotS the game will get harder, especially if carriers and the ms are really taken out, atleast for toss. As they seem to want to increase the defenders advantage and the harassment ability. (will turn sc2 a bit more bwish) Will have to wait and see how it plays out and then the last one as well, or the one after the last one if they are unhappy.
Now on topic, i think blizzard made sc2 easier to learn and harder to master then bw, so i would say a complete success in that regard and that with 2 expansions to go. They might have made it to hard to master for the start though as some people are unimpressed from the top play. But sadly its hard to judge really, as there is the fanboy syndrome. Someone totally into something for a long period of time, will either defend it against competition by their teeth or they will move on to the new and start to hate where they came from with passion. Of course not everyone is like this, but those fanboys/hurt fanboys, never let a chance slide to let everyone know.
But i think what we got out of everything is, that we don't want the game to become easier and what we are missing and i think Blizzard understood us there. Atleast that how it looked like at blizzcon, though blizzard was probably surprised how people reacted on the toss no deathball units. But going deeper into that would go to far off topic as those units are probably scrapped already.
On January 23 2012 23:20 Yorbon wrote: When I look at code s, I realise the skill ceiling hasn't been reached.
There won't ever be a point where some player achieves the near perfect skill to pla the game. Sure at some point there is possible play the game at seemingly perfect level, but there is always room for improvement.
All please read: this thread was supposed to be arguing the fact that it is the ease of the game that draws the large crowds, and without it it would be a game for the minority, not the masses. It is not really a discussion on whether or not it should be harder, that is for another thread
Sadly op , no one is reading the bold words you put it in the opening of the thread . Although you are asking for the discussion that whether it is a fact that the ease of the game is drawing in the crowds and without it would have the same popularity of broodwar .
Than why make a poll stating do you want the game to be harder ? . This thread would have make do without the poll and people won't be discussing whether if the game should be harder than .
Um, yeah, I agree. No need for a harder game. But making the game a little more interactive would be nice. BTW, we need more and better custom games!!!
I have always subscribed to the belief that this game should revolve around and reward decision making as a primary skill indicator. Mechanically, yes, i think that this game should be as easy as possible. Its not like you would limit a football player to having to manditorily run with crutches.
We should have the best tools to get the job done. Having to spend 50 APM just to get your workers to mine diminishes the apm that you are able to spend on more entertaining actions. There is an unlimited amount of things that you can spend APM on, so it is not like anyone would be sitting around with nothing to do if redundant things were more automated.
Dont get me wrong, im not suggesting that injured units should automatically pull themselvs back until their oponents have retargeted. I also am certainly not suggesting that each unit should auto target on the unit with lowest life. Im just suggesting that things such as having the probes auto mine, or being able to que up units or shift-commands is good for this game.
What is more impressive to you? watching a pro suicide walk 6 high templars into the enemy but get 1 storm off? or succesfully land 6 perfectly placed storms?.. in the respective games, both could be considered impressive based on the mechanics available, but I would abosultely suggest that it is important that people be given the abiltiy to control their units with the most precision as possible.
I would fully throw my support behind any mechanical/ui enhancements that would allow me to quickly execute
im sure a lot of fan boys will jump on this post. i honestly get the impression that the majority of the people who advocate harder controls cant even play this game with the enhanced controls we already have. in the past i have challenged many of these fanboys to a 1v1 in which I will go mouse only, and i have still won every time (except 1 time). I really just get the feeling that people support having harder abilities because they currently suck at this game and cant believe that it is actually just them that sucks. People will blame anything.. game mechanics.. race.. maps... god forbid you are actually just bad???
if any high level pros are losing to mid level pro's, there are many explanations other than the mechanics and game being too easy. for example, all-ins are very strong. sometimes pros get greedy and take a risk that doesnt pay off sometimes they dont respond properly to what they scout (or dont even scout properly)
also, the various macro mechanics allow for the game to be very friendly if you screw up.
These are all gameplay issues, not UI issues.
to make the game more micro-friendly, wouldn't giving a high ground advantage be much more reasonable than making it 12 units max selection? is anyone really suggesting that shitty unit pathing would be good for this game?
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
It's not proven that the SC2 success in the west comes from that. It's most likely just the fact it has been marketed on a larger scale as a game and eSport, and since we are way more superficial than asians we think graphic matters a lot. We can just make speculations but my eyes bleed whenever somebody take for granted that SC2 success is most likely given by the fact the game is easier than SCBW.
Where does that come from?
He probably means "we have way more surface area than Asians do.
We do not need to make the game harder, we just need the game to have a higher skill ceiling. This means allowing for more microing during battles instead of deathball vs deathball ending in under 20 seconds, and creating units with have soft counters instead of pure hard counter units.
When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I feel like it's a slender line to tread. The game has to be hard enough that watching pro's is worth it over watching your friends, but similarly the common man has to be able to understand the mechanics and at least have a rudimentary capacity to execute them, simply for the sake of relatability for the crowd.
i.e. -I can muta micro, but if I do it to the maximum extent of my abilities my macro slips pretty hard. Like, 1.5K hard. I am capable of executing the micro well, but the difficulty of the entire game limits my ability to properly execute the entire strategy, thus, in this regard, we see a balanced mechanic.
Game needs to reward people with better mechanics and strategy instead of rewarding people who choose a certain race, coin flip and etc. So yes, it definitely needs to be harder. I mean, there are certain units which debatably, can't be micro'd like the roach.
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
That was exactly my point -_-. Neither game is 'easy', they're just 'different'.
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
What you said there just made absolutely and positively no sense. In-fact, I'm completely baffled by how your thought process came to that conclusion in instinctively defending Brood War for no apparent reason.
I dont agree with making the UI harder like in BW (no automine, clunky pathing, etc), because that was just unnecessary, except for maybe stuff like 12-unit control groups would really bring back a staple multitasking/mechanical element that should make the game harder + more fun to watch. I think once people stop bitching about how they can't 1a big 200/200 armies we could really see some new dynamics to how the game is played.
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.
Under that logic there must not be a skill cap in BW, last I checked Flash and Jaedong have rather retarded high w/l.
There isn't a skill cap that can realistically be reached in a game with this many variables regardless of the potential being lower than BWs. Starcraft 2 might be easier than BW, but it's still one of the hardest and most competitive games out there.
As for the topic at hand.
Make the game more mechanically demanding by gimping the UI? No.
Make the game more mechanically demanding by adding units get exponentially better with micro for all races? Yes.
Make the game more mechanically demanding by adding macro mechanics that enforce good mechanics? Yes.
Design the maps to allow for more intelligent and strategic play? Yes.
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
What you said there just made absolutely and positively no sense. In-fact, I'm completely baffled by how your thought process came to that conclusion in instinctively defending Brood War for no apparent reason.
I am not defending broodwar at all , I watch their fpvods and I do realized that they do get supply block when things get too hot and I mean hot in terms of engagements every where :O.
Ease of gameplay and just being able to '1A' to victory, rather than selecting 12 units at a time to attack, has sparked a universal debate that will most likely go on for a long time still.
I, for one, am on the side that Starcraft 2 is a much, MUCH easier game than BW after playing both, strategically (most likely due to the time it had to develop) but more importantly, mechanically. Is this bad? This is the question I am asking, and I for one think that it is the most important aspect of the game.
Try A-moving vs someone set up in defensive position with concave and good spread then talk. God, when will those stupid threads end. People talking about skill cap and having no fucking clue what it means. There is plenty more actions to be done to win battles that top tier players are not even close of achieving.
On January 23 2012 23:50 EternaLLegacy wrote: I'll tell you what.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
No one ever stated that SC2 was just as hard as BW. People just discuss that there is no need to make SC2 harder since the skill cap is not reached
I dont like how you sell all the pros of this sport short by saying "you don't have to work hard to reach the top". It does take a lot of work to reach the top, and SC2 is the hardest game since BW.
I believe there are many ways to make SC2 better that don't involve directly increasing the mechanical difficulty. For instance if units didn't clump so much it would instantly make it a better game to me. That's almost zero sum mechanically, in some circumstances you want your cute lil ball of bio to occupy a tiny amount of space and destroy everything with absolutely no input from the user and others you want your units spread out. Aesthetically it improves the game, and gameplay wise it makes splash less rapey
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
Lets see.
-Sc2 too easy mechanically. Counter argument: Then why are good players making simple mistakes?
-Something Rhetorical conclusion: BW is easy because good players make simple mistakes.
Ideally Blizzard could find a way to up the skill ceiling at the top levels while keeping the game accessible and fun to newbies, but that is a tall order.
On January 23 2012 23:50 EternaLLegacy wrote: I'll tell you what.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
No one ever stated that SC2 was just as hard as BW. People just discuss that there is no need to make SC2 harder since the skill cap is not reached
How can we define the term skill cap ? for broodwar and sc2 ?
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
What you said there just made absolutely and positively no sense. In-fact, I'm completely baffled by how your thought process came to that conclusion in instinctively defending Brood War for no apparent reason.
I am not defending broodwar at all , I watch their fpvods and I do realized that they do get supply block when things get too hot and I mean hot in terms of engagements every where :O.
The original statement was that "You can't call StarCraft II easy when players make mistakes all the time." Your reply was "People still make cheap mistakes in StarCraft: Brood War, does that mean that game is easy?" You misunderstood what he said.
Why are we arguing about this? We have not gotten close to the skillcap. Marine splitting is at a fraction where it will be. Stalker blink micro is getting good but will become even better. I watch top protoss players sitting with an afk phoenix for half the game when it should constantly be moving and annoying the enemy. Just give it more time.
On January 23 2012 23:50 EternaLLegacy wrote: I'll tell you what.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
No one ever stated that SC2 was just as hard as BW. People just discuss that there is no need to make SC2 harder since the skill cap is not reached
How can we define the term skill cap ? for broodwar and sc2 ?
Should SC2 be more mechanically difficult? No, it's already bloody hard to master all the mechanics of Starcraft 2. Think about Chess or Go; it is very easy to learn the mechanics, but there is enormous strategic and tactical depth to them such that players can spend a lifetime on them and still find them challenging. SC2 shouldn't be so physically demanding that only a few have the reflexes to play it at all, it's the strategic depth that makes the game interesting at high levels, not just the display of high APM skills.
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
What you said there just made absolutely and positively no sense. In-fact, I'm completely baffled by how your thought process came to that conclusion in instinctively defending Brood War for no apparent reason.
I am not defending broodwar at all , I watch their fpvods and I do realized that they do get supply block when things get too hot and I mean hot in terms of engagements every where :O.
The original statement was that "You can't call StarCraft II easy when players make mistakes all the time." Your reply was "People still make cheap mistakes in StarCraft: Brood War, does that mean that game is easy?" You misunderstood what he said.
In both games , both of this "Progamers" do make mistake getting supply block , not injecting larvae to get more larvae,not chrono boosting and pro gamers in broodwar also do miss their macro cycle timing . Both games are not easy .
On January 23 2012 23:50 EternaLLegacy wrote: I'll tell you what.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
No one ever stated that SC2 was just as hard as BW. People just discuss that there is no need to make SC2 harder since the skill cap is not reached
How can we define the term skill cap ? for broodwar and sc2 ?
On January 23 2012 23:50 EternaLLegacy wrote: I'll tell you what.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
No one ever stated that SC2 was just as hard as BW. People just discuss that there is no need to make SC2 harder since the skill cap is not reached
How can we define the term skill cap ? for broodwar and sc2 ?
The skill cap of a game is the point where you execute every single action optimally, or at the very least, every aspect that has a significant bearing on the game.
The skill cap of Starcraft 2 might be as massive as the sun in comparison to Brood Wars Antares to make a silly comparison. You'd be a fool thinking you could bench press the sun because it's not as massive as Antares. Both have a mass/skill cap that's way beyond anything a human being can pull off, which makes it irrelevant.
If the current SC2 pros are at an average skill level of x, the current top tier Brood war average pros would be at a skill level of x+5. BW is just that much more mechanically harder to play, and the BW pros, while being better than the current SC2 pros due to their experience and training regimen, are still human beings who are limited by their human bodies and minds, and they prioritize on what makes the biggest impact when they play the game, and there are always a x+trillion variables left untouched because they're to slow handle them, whereas in SC2 there'd "only" be x+billion variables left untouched because the pros are to slow to handle them. The skill cap of the games lie in handling all the variables of the game. When people actually peak SC2 and play like automatons, you can complain about the skill cap being reached.
THAT SAID, there is still a lot you can do to make the game more interesting, which is implementing units that have a ton more variables to use, variables that are interesting and mechanically rewarding rather than small, to make the game better.
On January 24 2012 00:45 Freddybear wrote: Should SC2 be more mechanically difficult? No, it's already bloody hard to master all the mechanics of Starcraft 2. Think about Chess or Go; it is very easy to learn the mechanics, but there is enormous strategic and tactical depth to them such that players can spend a lifetime on them and still find them challenging. SC2 shouldn't be so physically demanding that only a few have the reflexes to play it at all, it's the strategic depth that makes the game interesting at high levels, not just the display of high APM skills.
having enough apm should/do make certain strategies viable. just look at marine micro vs banelings...
Ok I was thinking about this the other day, and postulating as to what Blizzards thinking is.
1. Macro is easier, it is harder to get ahead just by macroing like a beast, and hard to come back from a deficit if your opponent is just macroing 'ok'. This makes the games defined by critical engagements because you can't make up a deficit if your opponent isn't retarded. There are relatively few players who are lauded specifically for being good at macro, because it's pretty easy to get up to par in that respect. 2. Micro is still a good area that skill differentials exist in, but the problem here is that after the early/midgame and the arrival of deathballs, micro becomes less and less important as the army sizes grow bigger.
Now it is fine for these two areas to be easier, in my view. I don't like the deathball syndrome but Blizzard seem loathe to change it. There needs to be more variation in a third category.
3. Strategy. If there is little to separate the average from the good in the prior two categories, there must be more capacity to out-think your opponent. I think this is where Blizzard are trying to push things with the next two expansions. The problem with the game as it is at present is that there are not enough ways to do this. The matchups progress in a pretty standard way with little scope for imagination.
Note I don't count coinflip bo wins as 'out-thinking' your opponent, though they are an important and interesting facet of competitive Starcraft. I'm referring to the ability to think on your feet and make dynamic tactical choices.
Here are just a few ideas that have been put forward in the past 1. Make warpgate cooldown > gateway cooldown. This is a simple, simple change that would introduce an interesting strategic dynamic. You can go aggression heavy, with fewer units but utilising forward pylons to try and pressure your opponent, or you can safely macro up and get more units, but without as much aggressive potential.
I think Blizzard really need to not drop the ball with the next few expansions and patches. Appealing to casual players by dumbing the game down is retarded, because they don't tend to advertise the game in the same way that high-level players do. I for example and some of my friends have streamed in the past, done video diaries from Dreamhack, and people on my Facebook who had never played an RTS were intrigued and bought Starcraft because of it.
Making a game easier to appeal to casuals is a stupid concept that doesn't work. As an analogy I'll take the Call of Duty series. Basically whether through incompetence or intention, the devs always included one weapon that was super powerful, good at everything and easy to use, in short it was 'imba'. I believe this was intentional (it happened in like 5 separate titles), to appeal to the casual players. However, when you give bad players an easy to use weapon, you also give the good players such a weapon so the casuals still end up getting destroyed, but the game is railroaded down a path that everyone at a competitive level HAS to use such a weapon to compete.
Starcraft has a matchmaking system that pits you against players of an equivalent level. That should be enough to not dishearten the casual player, as they will be playing similarly skilled opponents, you don't need to dumb down the game more to do so.
On January 24 2012 00:45 Freddybear wrote: Should SC2 be more mechanically difficult? No, it's already bloody hard to master all the mechanics of Starcraft 2. Think about Chess or Go; it is very easy to learn the mechanics, but there is enormous strategic and tactical depth to them such that players can spend a lifetime on them and still find them challenging. SC2 shouldn't be so physically demanding that only a few have the reflexes to play it at all, it's the strategic depth that makes the game interesting at high levels, not just the display of high APM skills.
having enough apm should/do make certain strategies viable. just look at marine micro vs banelings...
And the only way those stragies become viable to begin with is when you have the APM to spare to do them because you don't have to waste them doing menial tasks in your base that the UI should take care for you to begin with.
Basically, add in more units that are microable and add in interesting and tactical macro mechanics.
Was broodwar harder to play? Of course. But there is a difference between a game being hard to play and a game being hard to win at the top levels. Take a look at chess. Learning how to play and being able to play is so simple that a child can do it. Learning to play well enough to beat top grandmasters? Takes an immense amount of innate talent and decades of study and learning and practice.
There is a HUGE difference between a game being mechanically difficult and a game being strategically difficult. Do you really want a game that is just mechanically more difficult? Then play broodwar for nostalgia. Again, I'm using the example of chess here, because it's a truly amazing game. The strategic depth in chess is absolutely immense, and in the end it's got only 6 different pieces and 64 squares. Now imagine a board with thousands of squares and a hundred pieces played in real time, that's starcraft. No matter how dumbed down blizzard makes the UI, it will still be complex enough to have a limitless skill cap, and a limitless skill cap means a game is only as hard as your competition.
I'm gonna repeat that since it's a simple idea people don't understand yet. In a game with no skill cap, the difficulty depends entirely on your competition. Not the unit mechanics, not the rally mechanics, not spell mechanics, not any of that shit matters. We don't want a game to be harder to PLAY, we want a game to be harder to WIN. And if SC2 is easier to win, it's because the level of play has not reached that of broodwar.
Please don't tell me the skill cap in SC2 will be reached eventually either. That's nonsense.
On January 23 2012 23:50 EternaLLegacy wrote: I'll tell you what.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
No one ever stated that SC2 was just as hard as BW. People just discuss that there is no need to make SC2 harder since the skill cap is not reached
How can we define the term skill cap ? for broodwar and sc2 ?
But that kind of capability is only capable of being done by robots ...[/QUOTE]
Well, the thing that I was pointing to is: as long as you would need like 20.000 exact APM to micro a battle perfectly with exact precision, there will always be room for people to outplay each other with a limit of 200-300 APM with spamclicking. There will simply never ever be a gamer that knows exactly how to play a complex situation right, meaning intuition will always play a huge role and there will always be room for development.
furthermore, people might get faster than they are now, which means that kind of stuff gets "more capable".
On January 23 2012 23:50 EternaLLegacy wrote: I'll tell you what.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
No one ever stated that SC2 was just as hard as BW. People just discuss that there is no need to make SC2 harder since the skill cap is not reached
How can we define the term skill cap ? for broodwar and sc2 ?
The skill cap of a game is the point where you execute every single action optimally, or at the very least, every aspect that has a significant bearing on the game.
The skill cap of Starcraft 2 might be as massive as the sun in comparison to Brood Wars Antares to make a silly comparison. You'd be a fool thinking you could bench press the sun because it's not as massive as Antares. Both have a mass/skill cap that's way beyond anything a human being can pull off, which makes it irrelevant.
If the current SC2 pros are at an average skill level of x, the current top tier Brood war average pros would be at a skill level of x+5. BW is just that much more mechanically harder to play, and the BW pros, while being better than the current SC2 pros due to their experience and training regimen, are still human beings who are limited by their human bodies and minds, and they prioritize on what makes the biggest impact when they play the game, and there are always a x+trillion variables left untouched because they're to slow handle them, whereas in SC2 there'd "only" be x+billion variables left untouched because the pros are to slow to handle them. The skill cap of the games lie in handling all the variables of the game. When people actually peak SC2 and play like automatons, you can complain about the skill cap being reached.
THAT SAID, there is still a lot you can do to make the game more interesting, which is implementing units that have a ton more variables to use, variables that are interesting and mechanically rewarding rather than small, to make the game better.
On January 24 2012 00:55 liberal wrote: These types of threads are so stupid.
Was broodwar harder to play? Of course. But there is a difference between a game being hard to play and a game being hard to win at the top levels. Take a look at chess. Learning how to play and being able to play is so simple that a child can do it. Learning to play well enough to beat top grandmasters? Takes an immense amount of innate talent and decades of study and learning and practice.
There is a HUGE difference between a game being mechanically difficult and a game being strategically difficult. Do you really want a game that is just mechanically more difficult? Then play broodwar for nostalgia. Again, I'm using the example of chess here, because it's a truly amazing game. The strategic depth in chess is absolutely immense, and in the end it's got only 6 different pieces and 64 squares. Now imagine a board with thousands of squares and a hundred pieces played in real time, that's starcraft. No matter how dumbed down blizzard makes the UI, it will still be complex enough to have a limitless skill cap, and a limitless skill cap means a game is only as hard as your competition.
I'm gonna repeat that since it's a simple idea people don't understand yet. In a game with no skill cap, the difficulty depends entirely on your competition. Not the unit mechanics, not the rally mechanics, not spell mechanics, not any of that shit matters. We don't want a game to be harder to PLAY, we want a game to be harder to WIN. And if SC2 is easier to win, it's because the level of play has not reached that of broodwar.
Please don't tell me the skill cap in SC2 will be reached eventually either. That's nonsense.
I made the point that I don't necessarily mind SC2 being mechanically less demanding than BW if the capacity to out-strategise your opponent was just as big or bigger. Don't think that's the case yet either but we shall see after the two expansions
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
What you said there just made absolutely and positively no sense. In-fact, I'm completely baffled by how your thought process came to that conclusion in instinctively defending Brood War for no apparent reason.
I am not defending broodwar at all , I watch their fpvods and I do realized that they do get supply block when things get too hot and I mean hot in terms of engagements every where :O.
The original statement was that "You can't call StarCraft II easy when players make mistakes all the time." Your reply was "People still make cheap mistakes in StarCraft: Brood War, does that mean that game is easy?" You misunderstood what he said.
In both games , both of this "Progamers" do make mistake getting supply block , not injecting larvae to get more larvae,not chrono boosting and pro gamers in broodwar also do miss their macro cycle timing . Both games are not easy .
He didn't say anything you're suggesting. He did not say StarCraft II is easy. He did not say Brood War is easy. He said it is silly for other players to state that StarCraft II is easy, the reason being that the best players continue to make mistakes. He cast no personal judgment on either game, and never even mentioned Brood War. There was no "StarCraft II vs. Brood War" argument to be found anywhere in that statement. You're taking his original statement and using it to invoke a comparison that has absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm trying to be nice about it (and given how dumb this particular discussion thread is to begin with, I'm being really reserved here), but I'm still baffled you came to that conclusion.
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
What you said there just made absolutely and positively no sense. In-fact, I'm completely baffled by how your thought process came to that conclusion in instinctively defending Brood War for no apparent reason.
I am not defending broodwar at all , I watch their fpvods and I do realized that they do get supply block when things get too hot and I mean hot in terms of engagements every where :O.
The original statement was that "You can't call StarCraft II easy when players make mistakes all the time." Your reply was "People still make cheap mistakes in StarCraft: Brood War, does that mean that game is easy?" You misunderstood what he said.
In both games , both of this "Progamers" do make mistake getting supply block , not injecting larvae to get more larvae,not chrono boosting and pro gamers in broodwar also do miss their macro cycle timing . Both games are not easy .
He didn't say anything you're suggesting. He did not say StarCraft II is easy. He did not say Brood War is easy. He said it is silly for other players to state that StarCraft II is easy, the reason being that the best players continue to make mistakes. He cast no personal judgment on either game, and never even mentioned Brood War. There was no "StarCraft II vs. Brood War" argument to be found anywhere in that statement. You're taking his original statement and using it to invoke a comparison that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I am taking his experience on what he says about players mistake in sc2 and relate it to what I know about broodwar and yeah like I said I have respect for both games and I am just stating the obvious . Mistakes happen in broodwar too and sc2 is not a easy game . Because in both games players has to be multi tasking on the fly and juggle between microing or macroing . Not trying to sound condescending in any way to be honest if that's what you are trying to say I am doing here .
On January 24 2012 00:54 Wombat_NI wrote: Ok I was thinking about this the other day, and postulating as to what Blizzards thinking is.
1. Macro is easier, it is harder to get ahead just by macroing like a beast, and hard to come back from a deficit if your opponent is just macroing 'ok'. This makes the games defined by critical engagements because you can't make up a deficit if your opponent isn't retarded. There are relatively few players who are lauded specifically for being good at macro, because it's pretty easy to get up to par in that respect. 2. Micro is still a good area that skill differentials exist in, but the problem here is that after the early/midgame and the arrival of deathballs, micro becomes less and less important as the army sizes grow bigger.
Agree with both issues. I've always felt a bit sad that the games macro, while being hard as hell to play optimally is enough to keep any advantage by playing at 70% efficiency. Idra also mentions this quite alot in sotg among other things how you can't just outmacro someone like in BW if you were behind to catchup, or just outmacro them to win period. I'd like it if Blizzard figured out ways to make macroing more demanding without making it menial. Things like larva injects, mules and chrono boosts are great ideas, since they add mechanical difficulty and reward good execution.
The same thing goes with 2. We need more units like marines, banelings, tanks, stalkers and less units like the colossi to make the game more interesting.
The only reason I've played this game non stop since beta is because it's hard and competitive. I hope the difficulty continues to increase and regardless of expansions I think it will no matter what just by the nature of a game maturing.
I see your point about a game being too hard for new players but the difficulty of any game over time is going to go up so why fight it?
Zerg and Protoss need more microable units.... I think Terran is fine and doesnt really need much adjustment. But Zerg needs better units and Protoss needs to not be so fragile in the early game ~_~ Other than that I think the difficulty is fine, more units will just increase multitasking necessary to compete at the highest level
yea seriously needs to be more difficult. Even players like forGG use 1 hotkey for the army omg...players may have multiple hotkeys for units, but if you watch closely. there is none of that usage on streams. Not sure why players show off the 1a2a3a before the game tbh.
Also in BW people use the hotkeys to remember certain screens (in SC2 is like ctrl f7, f8 or something, but it can be changed). Players still use the minimap to move around at the pro level kind of annoys me tbh.
You're correlating the ease of use of SC2 relative to BW as being the sole or large deciding factor in SC2's popularity. In reality this has LITTLE to do with SC2's success. This release not only built upon the franchise established by SC1 and BW, but it had substantially better marketing from it's publishing company, and was released at a time where consumers had a much greater access to reviews, gameplay videos, tutorials, etc.
It is redundant but apparently needs to continuously be stated that this game is JUST over a year old. BW as we know it now was 10 years of tweaking every little thing that needed tweaking to get the final product. Saying this game is too easy when there is not a single player in the world who has come within miles of hitting the skillcap for this game is absurd. Yes, I agree with you BW was a more difficult game, but that does not mean every production relating to that franchise has have a similar skill cap. This poll is completely meaningless and inconsequential to the resolution of what you proposed. This forum is NOT the majority who play the game, believe it or not. And it's especially fruitless given a fair amount of the responses you get come from the common misconception that checking "make this game harder" correlates to the length of one's ePenis, regardless of the fact that it's a blind poll.
People all over this thread are talking about diamond and masters level like it's somewhere close to the skill cap of SC2, that is COMPLETELY untrue. MVP, Nestea, MC, ALL get supply blocked more than once a series. They ALL lack the ability to macro effectively while under pressure, etc. This game is not solved. The first expansion is not even out yet. This is sensationalism and nothing more. Think about it.
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
It's not proven that the SC2 success in the west comes from that. It's most likely just the fact it has been marketed on a larger scale as a game and eSport, and since we are way more superficial than asians we think graphic matters a lot. We can just make speculations but my eyes bleed whenever somebody take for granted that SC2 success is most likely given by the fact the game is easier than SCBW.
Where does that come from?
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.
Let's skip your ignorant comment first and address what Cloud is talking about in reference to video games. He's saying we're way more superficial than asians when it comes to playing video games. In the West, sales/esports are dominated by the latest and greatest in visual appeal relative to the East.
Compare: GTA4/Halo3/CS:S/Crysis/COD/BF3/GOW vs. SC:BW/Kart Rider/Lineage/Maple Story/WC3/Dota 1/Tekken/SF. Of course there are exceptions to this, a prime example being League of Legends.
Also, don't stereotype an entire continent of women as superficial because of your failures at pickup in Seoul. Typical scrub mentality: instead of taking responsibility for your failures, you blame it on the game, or the other party.
Leave your inferiority complex behind, as well as your racist attitude. You won't pick up chicks that way. Nuff said.
The idea that a duel game is easy or hard compared to another duel game is completely inappropriate. Noone will ever play a mechanically perfect game, neither in bw nor in sc2. (If you doubt this btw then go and watch the videos with the micro-AI.) Therefore it is exactly as easy or as hard to win in both games, since the mechanics are exactly the same for both players in both games. The skillset might be somewhat different in SC2, but its neither harder nor easier. You wouldn't go and start rambling about how football is harder than hockey or would you? Because statements like these don't even have an actual meaning attached to their words other than someone crying out in need of attention.
The whole SC2 is easier than BW talk is nothing more than the whining of people who are butthurt that their skills in one game dont transfer completely to another game.
Sorry to break it to you, but you actually never lose on ladder to someone "obviously below your skill level". Your skill is your ability to win in this game, nothing more, nothing less. If you lose, the other guy was better, at least for that one game, everything else is delusional.
On January 24 2012 01:11 Switchy wrote: I havent seen any bad players win tournaments yet so i do not see the problem with the skill cap not being high enough.
I dont really see GSL being won through consistent good performance other than MVP. Here are some inconsistencies that show that skill cap not being high enough, and the volatility of the game at the moment. Too much of the game is based on luck of build order prepared.
- Jakji being a darkhorse winning the GSL recently. - Oz to semi-finals - Nestea drop to UpAndDown (after he recently winning GSL) - MC drop to UpAndDown (after recently winning GSL) - MVP drop to UpAndDown (after previously winning GSL) - MKP struggling to stay in Code S - Inca in GSL finals.... - OgsFIN, ForGG winning Code A yet knocked out in GSL groups in 4th place too
On January 24 2012 01:11 Switchy wrote: I havent seen any bad players win tournaments yet so i do not see the problem with the skill cap not being high enough.
I dont really see GSL being won through consistent good performance other than MVP. Here are some inconsistencies that show that skill cap not being high enough, and the volatility of the game at the moment. Too much of the game is based on luck of build order prepared.
- Jakji being a darkhorse winning the GSL recently. - Oz to semi-finals - Nestea drop to UpAndDown (after he recently winning GSL) - MC drop to UpAndDown (after recently winning GSL) - MVP drop to UpAndDown (after previously winning GSL) - MKP struggling to stay in Code S - Inca in GSL finals.... - OgsFIN, ForGG winning Code A yet knocked out in GSL groups in 4th place too
Wat? If you want consistency you check win ratios, where you'll see a lot of the higher level players at 65%+s (which incidentally mean that they lose 35% of their games). People get better, some people get worse. Everyone have off days and do mistakes.
Also the strength you give to plays doesn't mean that the game is flawed when they can't live up to your standards.
The game is only as hard as the competition, and since human beings aren't perfect, the skill cap on SC2 will never be reached. Therefore, the game doesn't need to get harder. There will always be someone who can play better than the level at which the game is currently being played. This goes for sc2 as well as sc:bw. I've played both games, bw far more than sc2, but I can say that they both take a such a high level of play that I could never master either game. And guess what? The pros never will, either. As someone else stated earlier, even Flash still misses depots. Why would we want sc2 to be harder mechanically when even the best of the best can't play sc:bw perfectly? Playing an impossible game isn't fun for anyone.
If hitting a home run was so impossibly hard that no one could do it, even the best of the best, I'd never have any desire to play or watch baseball. Keep sc2 how it is (generally)- it's better this way. (I'm not opposed to the adding/changing of units and timings.)
The whole SC2 is easier than BW talk is nothing more than the whining of people who are butthurt that their skills in one game dont transfer completely to another game.
Sorry to break it to you, but you actually never lose on ladder to someone "obviously below your skill level". Your skill is your ability to win in this game, nothing more, nothing less. If you lose, the other guy was better, at least for that one game, everything else is delusional.
Disagree, I never played much SC1, I play much more SC2 because it is easier. Many people feel that as well. Why is it a lot of foreigners play SC2? When SC1 started foreigners also participated (in Korea), but soon the majority left and why is that? The mechanics of the game is harder. I wish it was not, but the fact is it really is... And the skills really transfer because the more successful BW players (not counting old players that already retired) are more successful here. MVP was an A teamer and he is the best player atm, too good to be a coincidence right? Even with carpel tunnel syndrome
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
It's not proven that the SC2 success in the west comes from that. It's most likely just the fact it has been marketed on a larger scale as a game and eSport, and since we are way more superficial than asians we think graphic matters a lot. We can just make speculations but my eyes bleed whenever somebody take for granted that SC2 success is most likely given by the fact the game is easier than SCBW.
East Asian culture is much much more superficial than Western culture. People will literally get rejected from office non-service jobs for being uglier than the other candidates, and this is considered socially acceptable. This is why there's such a high rate of plastic surgery and make up stores on every block in places like Korea.
The reason why Koreans stuck to BW for so many years is because nothing better than it ever came out.
I don't know how, but blizzard has to add another level to the game lots of mechanics where without them the player would still be fine, but not fully optimal and thats very hard to do and more tricks for instance I believe you gotta hotkey an overlord with the muta clump to make microing the mutalisks even possible (in brood war). Sc2 needs more shit like that or mechanics as they are called.
The game can't be made easier tho because you know it's a multiplayer game and both players got the perks.
What blizzard has to do is make defender's advantage bigger late game. If blizzard does that then it will take significent skill to kill an opponent so your goal won't be to kill somebody outright, but get yourself an advantage first and in that case some players could make something happen. I don't know this is my idea tho I think thats the only way to resolve the 1 battle syndrome (and worse that battle being luck in certain situations PvP comes to mind...)
Reply if you believe what I said is invalid or you believe you can expand on my idea
Skillcap isn't the real problem of sc2. I was an avid BW follower and kinda dropped it when sc2 came out. What sc2 really miss is those AWWW moments. Not enough clutch strom drops, reaver harass and stop lurkers epicness for me.
On January 24 2012 01:26 scDeluX wrote: Skillcap isn't the real problem of sc2. I was an avid BW follower and kinda dropped it when sc2 came out. What sc2 really miss is those AWWW moments. Not enough clutch strom drops, reaver harass and stop lurkers epicness for me.
They exist, you probably just dropped off before people figured out the game enough for them to exist. Burrowed banelings with marines running near them is the most heartstopping thing ever. Seeker missiles in TvT can be absurdly exciting in the late game in the right circumstances.
On January 24 2012 01:11 Switchy wrote: I havent seen any bad players win tournaments yet so i do not see the problem with the skill cap not being high enough.
I dont really see GSL being won through consistent good performance other than MVP. Here are some inconsistencies that show that skill cap not being high enough, and the volatility of the game at the moment. Too much of the game is based on luck of build order prepared.
- Jakji being a darkhorse winning the GSL recently. - Oz to semi-finals - Nestea drop to UpAndDown (after he recently winning GSL) - MC drop to UpAndDown (after recently winning GSL) - MVP drop to UpAndDown (after previously winning GSL) - MKP struggling to stay in Code S - Inca in GSL finals.... - OgsFIN, ForGG winning Code A yet knocked out in GSL groups in 4th place too
Wat? If you want consistency you check win ratios, where you'll see a lot of the higher level players at 65%+s (which incidentally mean that they lose 35% of their games). People get better, some people get worse. Everyone have off days and do mistakes.
Also the strength you give to plays doesn't mean that the game is flawed when they can't live up to your standards.
On January 24 2012 01:11 Switchy wrote: I havent seen any bad players win tournaments yet so i do not see the problem with the skill cap not being high enough.
I dont really see GSL being won through consistent good performance other than MVP. Here are some inconsistencies that show that skill cap not being high enough, and the volatility of the game at the moment. Too much of the game is based on luck of build order prepared.
- Jakji being a darkhorse winning the GSL recently. - Oz to semi-finals - Nestea drop to UpAndDown (after he recently winning GSL) - MC drop to UpAndDown (after recently winning GSL) - MVP drop to UpAndDown (after previously winning GSL) - MKP struggling to stay in Code S - Inca in GSL finals.... - OgsFIN, ForGG winning Code A yet knocked out in GSL groups in 4th place too
Oz and Jjakji have always been really good. Just because you're ignorant of their skill doesn't mean they weren't good.
MKP struggled to stay in Code S because of Bo1s.
MC and NesTea dropping to U/D is fine. MC wasn't playing well for a brief period. NesTea has had hard groups.
InCa in GSL finals...I'll give you that.
oGsFin did not win Code A, lol. He beat his 3 opponents, and then got a really fucking hard Code S group with 3 of the best players in the world. Nothing to do with volatility there.
The whole SC2 is easier than BW talk is nothing more than the whining of people who are butthurt that their skills in one game dont transfer completely to another game.
Sorry to break it to you, but you actually never lose on ladder to someone "obviously below your skill level". Your skill is your ability to win in this game, nothing more, nothing less. If you lose, the other guy was better, at least for that one game, everything else is delusional.
Disagree, I never played much SC1, I play much more SC2 because it is easier. Many people feel that as well. Why is it a lot of foreigners play SC2? When SC1 started foreigners also participated (in Korea), but soon the majority left and why is that? The mechanics of the game is harder. I wish it was not, but the fact is it really is... And the skills really transfer because the more successful BW players (not counting old players that already retired) are more successful here. MVP was an A teamer and he is the best player atm, too good to be a coincidence right? Even with carpel tunnel syndrome
You're post is riddled with unrelated points and logical fallacies that aren't worth my time to address.
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.
On January 24 2012 01:11 Switchy wrote: I havent seen any bad players win tournaments yet so i do not see the problem with the skill cap not being high enough.
I dont really see GSL being won through consistent good performance other than MVP. Here are some inconsistencies that show that skill cap not being high enough, and the volatility of the game at the moment. Too much of the game is based on luck of build order prepared.
- Jakji being a darkhorse winning the GSL recently. - Oz to semi-finals - Nestea drop to UpAndDown (after he recently winning GSL) - MC drop to UpAndDown (after recently winning GSL) - MVP drop to UpAndDown (after previously winning GSL) - MKP struggling to stay in Code S - Inca in GSL finals.... - OgsFIN, ForGG winning Code A yet knocked out in GSL groups in 4th place too
Oz and Jjakji have always been really good. Just because you're ignorant of their skill doesn't mean they weren't good.
MKP struggled to stay in Code S because of Bo1s.
MC and NesTea dropping to U/D is fine. MC wasn't playing well for a brief period. NesTea has had hard groups.
InCa in GSL finals...I'll give you that.
oGsFin did not win Code A, lol. He beat his 3 opponents, and then got a really fucking hard Code S group with 3 of the best players in the world. Nothing to do with volatility there.
InCa got to the GSL finals by playing PvP's up until the finals, and he's a freaking PvP sniper. He's ridiculously good in that matchup, it's just that his PvZ is bad and his PvT isn't particularly good either.
Oh, and if you watched the finals between Jjakji and Leenock, you wouldn't think he was just some dark horse who was bad. He played very, very well.
On January 24 2012 01:24 CakeSauc3 wrote: The game is only as hard as the competition, and since human beings aren't perfect, the skill cap on SC2 will never be reached. Therefore, the game doesn't need to get harder. There will always be someone who can play better than the level at which the game is currently being played. This goes for sc2 as well as sc:bw. I've played both games, bw far more than sc2, but I can say that they both take a such a high level of play that I could never master either game. And guess what? The pros never will, either. As someone else stated earlier, even Flash still misses depots. Why would we want sc2 to be harder mechanically when even the best of the best can't play sc:bw perfectly? Playing an impossible game isn't fun for anyone.
If hitting a home run was so impossibly hard that no one could do it, even the best of the best, I'd never have any desire to play or watch baseball. Keep sc2 how it is (generally)- it's better this way. (I'm not opposed to the adding/changing of units and timings.)
I agree with what you've said, but the difference is that skill is less effective in SC 2. There is a lot more luck involved in what BO you are going against. If I were to absolutely BO win against an A on iccup I still wouldn't have a chance, but in sc2 just hidding a few proxies or doing something very all in and while he plays greedy I might tak,e a win from a mid-high master and I have before. Blizzard has to make something that will make having good mechanics, micro and macro a bigger advantage. You should listen to grubby and what happened in wc3 he said only the 5 best players could take wins off of each other. You should check his channel I'll link it latter.
The only question is whether SC2 has a skill cap reachable by humans. I would say that it doesn't, that, like Brood War, we will never seen humans perfectly execute a game that's not a 5 minute cheese. If the skill cap is above what is physically possible, then talk about hardness doesn't matter. At that point, game difficultly is entirely decided by competition. The reason why people say BW is so hard is because of the competition. Over a decade of mechanical and strategical development has meant that competing in BW is crushingly difficult.
On January 24 2012 01:26 scDeluX wrote: Skillcap isn't the real problem of sc2. I was an avid BW follower and kinda dropped it when sc2 came out. What sc2 really miss is those AWWW moments. Not enough clutch strom drops, reaver harass and stop lurkers epicness for me.
Just to start, i was and am a broowar fan, i am not a sc2 fan boy.
First of all, it does not have a lower skill ceiling. Any game which involves micro and direct competitive play (that is, an opponent reacting to your actions and vice versa) has an unlimited skill ceiling. Just because you need less apm to macro, doesn't mean you cant spend it in micro, you opponent can also do this, which makes it even harder to out micro your opponent.
I get tired of hearing how this is an easy game. Right up until the point that people are macroing flawlessly and controlling every unit like its a dota hero all this skill ceiling nonsense can stop.
Also, metagaming is not luck its just a different skill. So build order wins are not blind luck (you get consitent rock paper scissor champions) its about reading people. This is a skill not luck. When boxer bunker rushed yellow three times in a row, it was not luck, it was getting in his head, it was clever, it was skill.
The ONLY ways that sc2 can be seen as easier than Broodwar are that: - It is easier to learn broodwar IN THE BEGINNING becuase the FUNDAMENTAL mechanics ARE harder - Broodwar has a much more developed and in depth play style AND metagame (this WILL change over time)
These thing in no way effect the top tier skill ceiling. These threads are ridiculous, irritating and obnoxious. If sc2 was any more complex from game DESIGN rather than game PLAY then it would be difficult to watch and follow even to those also at a high level.
So to conclude, the games complexity and difficulty are fine and i cant believe threads like this are allowed to exist :|
I'm actually very casual sc player and it's common misunderstanding that casual players want easier. I want SC2 to be as hard as fuck seriously, maybe I'll get more interested in actualy playing too then.
e: Maybe something regarding unit design and control.
On January 24 2012 01:43 MCDayC wrote: The only question is whether SC2 has a skill cap reachable by humans. I would say that it doesn't, that, like Brood War, we will never seen humans perfectly execute a game that's not a 5 minute cheese. If the skill cap is above what is physically possible, then talk about hardness doesn't matter. At that point, game difficultly is entirely decided by competition. The reason why people say BW is so hard is because of the competition. Over a decade of mechanical and strategical development has meant that competing in BW is crushingly difficult.
A perfectly executed defense would still die to a not nearly perfect cheese if the BO advantage was such. We aren't arguing if the game skill cap was reached the problem are luck based engagements and not being able to get yourself back in the lead if you made a small mistake and your overall skill is a lot bigger or simply said skill not giving a big enough benefit to overcome a BO advantage or an SMALL early mistake. I'll give an example recently in bw PvP bisu managed to destroy a greedy protoss who went an FE with delayed goon range he DESTROYED the other player next week we had the same situation between two mid level progamers and the protoss just couldn't kill the other protoss without any early game mistakes it just came to micro and maybe a better executed timing, but the goons still hadn't had range in both situations.
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
It's not proven that the SC2 success in the west comes from that. It's most likely just the fact it has been marketed on a larger scale as a game and eSport, and since we are way more superficial than asians we think graphic matters a lot. We can just make speculations but my eyes bleed whenever somebody take for granted that SC2 success is most likely given by the fact the game is easier than SCBW.
East Asian culture is much much more superficial than Western culture. People will literally get rejected from office non-service jobs for being uglier than the other candidates, and this is considered socially acceptable. This is why there's such a high rate of plastic surgery and make up stores on every block in places like Korea.
The reason why Koreans stuck to BW for so many years is because nothing better than it ever came out.
He's talking about less superficial when it comes to playing games. How is having a pretty face relevant to graphics in a fucking video game?
My mind is full of fuck right now. Do I really need to TL;DR Cloud's three sentence post for some of you guys?
Here it goes: TL;DR: SC2 is more popular in the west probably because of its marketing and westerners buy games that have good graphics.
Some of you in this thread: "Cloud thinks we're more superficial than asians. I must respond with an ignorant ass statement that is completely irrelevant to his message." Jesus Christ please use reading comprehension.
While making the game harder may or may not make the gamer more entertaining to watch, Blizzard will not do that. Why? Because they care more about the millions of fans worldwide over the couple hundred pro gamers. Starcraft 2 sold 4.5 million copies by the end of 2010 alone, and I have many friends who play casually that don't give a damn about the professional scene. They don't want harder mechanics, they find it enjoyable enough the way it is. you don't need higher mechanics in football, baseball, basketball, etc to find it fun. It is fun to find your efforts pay off, but that is you personally improving over the game becoming harder.
If blizzard makes the game harder, it may sell just as much, but the enjoyabillity factor and the time spent playing may be impacted. If a young gamer loses every game because he cannot get the mechanics down because they can't practice 4-6 hours a day and they can't get strategy down because they can't comprehend it, then he will inevitably find the game less enjoyable. Not everyone perseveres, most people actually give up after repeated attempts and multiple failures/frustrations at a game.
And I personally believe the skill level of SC2 has not been reached yet, look at how much we came from the first GSL and its only been 1 year. Wait till bw pros switch over, the rest of the expansions come out, and when the game is finally at a decently balanced level. Then we can talk about whether SC2 is easy or hard.
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.
agreed, i really think people underestimate the extent that sc2 can go... it took SC1/BW to get to where it is now in terms of skill, calm down! XD
On January 24 2012 01:11 Switchy wrote: I havent seen any bad players win tournaments yet so i do not see the problem with the skill cap not being high enough.
I dont really see GSL being won through consistent good performance other than MVP. Here are some inconsistencies that show that skill cap not being high enough, and the volatility of the game at the moment. Too much of the game is based on luck of build order prepared.
- Jakji being a darkhorse winning the GSL recently. - Oz to semi-finals - Nestea drop to UpAndDown (after he recently winning GSL) - MC drop to UpAndDown (after recently winning GSL) - MVP drop to UpAndDown (after previously winning GSL) - MKP struggling to stay in Code S - Inca in GSL finals.... - OgsFIN, ForGG winning Code A yet knocked out in GSL groups in 4th place too
Oz and Jjakji have always been really good. Just because you're ignorant of their skill doesn't mean they weren't good.
MKP struggled to stay in Code S because of Bo1s.
MC and NesTea dropping to U/D is fine. MC wasn't playing well for a brief period. NesTea has had hard groups.
InCa in GSL finals...I'll give you that.
oGsFin did not win Code A, lol. He beat his 3 opponents, and then got a really fucking hard Code S group with 3 of the best players in the world. Nothing to do with volatility there.
InCa got to the GSL finals by playing PvP's up until the finals, and he's a freaking PvP sniper. He's ridiculously good in that matchup, it's just that his PvZ is bad and his PvT isn't particularly good either.
Oh, and if you watched the finals between Jjakji and Leenock, you wouldn't think he was just some dark horse who was bad. He played very, very well.
So NaDa, Virus and Rain are all Protoss? Didn't know that.
On January 24 2012 01:43 MCDayC wrote: The only question is whether SC2 has a skill cap reachable by humans. I would say that it doesn't, that, like Brood War, we will never seen humans perfectly execute a game that's not a 5 minute cheese. If the skill cap is above what is physically possible, then talk about hardness doesn't matter. At that point, game difficultly is entirely decided by competition. The reason why people say BW is so hard is because of the competition. Over a decade of mechanical and strategical development has meant that competing in BW is crushingly difficult.
A perfectly executed defense would still die to a not nearly perfect cheese if the BO advantage was such. We aren't arguing if the game skill cap was reached the problem are luck based engagements and not being able to get yourself back in the lead if you made a small mistake and your overall skill is a lot bigger or simply said skill not giving a big enough benefit to overcome a BO advantage or an SMALL early mistake. I'll give an example recently in bw PvP bisu managed to destroy a greedy protoss who went an FE with delayed goon range he DESTROYED the other player next week we had the same situation between two mid level progamers and the protoss just couldn't kill the other protoss without any early game mistakes it just came to micro and maybe a better executed timing, but the goons still hadn't had range in both situations.
And Losira held Zenio's (???) 8pool two times with hatch first, while a lot of progamers die time and time again in the same situation.
The game should be harder, but only in the context that there is reward for those pulling it off, and not being harder for the sake of it.
Like give carriers micro mechanics, which require some apm and are "harder" to execute, such thatt when between tow players, the one who can execute the harder mechanics will be better rewarded.
Lol at people thinking BW was only 'harder' because of UI. What about uhh you know unit design. the things you are controlling and the fact they are all completely simplistic tactically and in micro potential. That isn't UI it's just shitty.
Firstly, not harder but a more diverse and "better" game play. Secondly i would like to see the skill-cap being raised not by increasing the macro mechanics but by the units themselves. Blizzard needs to move away from 1a units and microless units. In combination with lowering the damage output (dps) the battles will last longer and thus allowing a skilled player to perform better in a battle situation.
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
That was exactly my point -_-. Neither game is 'easy', they're just 'different'.
no sc2 is easy compared to BW
its a simple fact of math. macro in sc2 is easier so is micro. strats the same
Pretty sure everyone who thinks the game has a low skill ceiling or "is easy to get to the top" are just spectators who dont play.
Micro in SC2 is alot harder than it was in BW (IMO). But micro was more rewarding in BW. You had less units on the screen at once, which meant there was less to manage overall. The units were all way slower too. No one had to split marines or dodge storms in BW. (mostly because it was impossible to dodge storms). Dragoons (for instance) had way more health and were way bigger. Play PvT in BW. the first 10 minutes of the game involve controlling less than 10 units with no forcefield.
On January 24 2012 01:11 Switchy wrote: I havent seen any bad players win tournaments yet so i do not see the problem with the skill cap not being high enough.
I dont really see GSL being won through consistent good performance other than MVP. Here are some inconsistencies that show that skill cap not being high enough, and the volatility of the game at the moment. Too much of the game is based on luck of build order prepared.
- Jakji being a darkhorse winning the GSL recently. - Oz to semi-finals - Nestea drop to UpAndDown (after he recently winning GSL) - MC drop to UpAndDown (after recently winning GSL) - MVP drop to UpAndDown (after previously winning GSL) - MKP struggling to stay in Code S - Inca in GSL finals.... - OgsFIN, ForGG winning Code A yet knocked out in GSL groups in 4th place too
Oz and Jjakji have always been really good. Just because you're ignorant of their skill doesn't mean they weren't good.
MKP struggled to stay in Code S because of Bo1s.
MC and NesTea dropping to U/D is fine. MC wasn't playing well for a brief period. NesTea has had hard groups.
InCa in GSL finals...I'll give you that.
oGsFin did not win Code A, lol. He beat his 3 opponents, and then got a really fucking hard Code S group with 3 of the best players in the world. Nothing to do with volatility there.
InCa got to the GSL finals by playing PvP's up until the finals, and he's a freaking PvP sniper. He's ridiculously good in that matchup, it's just that his PvZ is bad and his PvT isn't particularly good either.
Oh, and if you watched the finals between Jjakji and Leenock, you wouldn't think he was just some dark horse who was bad. He played very, very well.
So NaDa, Virus and Rain are all Protoss? Didn't know that.
Sorry, I was getting his code S run confused for something else. IIRC, his non-protoss opponents did not play well at all those games. He demolished Killer though.
On January 24 2012 02:24 infinity2k9 wrote: Lol at people thinking BW was only 'harder' because of UI. What about uhh you know unit design. the things you are controlling and the fact they are all completely simplistic tactically and in micro potential. That isn't UI it's just shitty.
I disagree. A lot of BW units would be pure a-move units with SC2 AI, but with BW AI they/most of them aren't: dragoon, hydralisk, zealot, corsair, scout, reaver, goliath, guardian...
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
That was exactly my point -_-. Neither game is 'easy', they're just 'different'.
no sc2 is easy compared to BW
its a simple fact of math. macro in sc2 is easier so is micro. strats the same
so we have a 2-0 in favor of BW
"its a simple fact of math. macro in bw is easier so is micro. strats the same so we have a 2-0 in favor of SC2"
you really have to give me something better than that. You just state things as though they were facts without any argumentation.
maybe you all should stop saying what makes sc2 easier then bw and start talking about what makes sc2 harder then bw. yes it might be easier to make certain actions happen. But that just makes it harder to beat someone in my opinion. But i dont see masters players easily beating pros, so that tells me there is a skill gap and the skill ceiling is high. In sc2 there are really strong units that can end the game tier 1 tier 2 tier 3 if you dont know how to stop it or scout it. its just a different game.
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
That was exactly my point -_-. Neither game is 'easy', they're just 'different'.
no sc2 is easy compared to BW
its a simple fact of math. macro in sc2 is easier so is micro. strats the same
so we have a 2-0 in favor of BW
Are you that dense?
Easier =/= easy. Knocking down the CN tower with one punch is easier than breaking the entire planet in half with one punch, that doesn't mean it's easy.
And it's not clear that micro is easier in SC2 than it is in Brood War. Simpler? Yes. It is much simpler, unit control isn't nearly as complex. But complexity and difficulty are not the same thing, units die much faster in SC2 and move faster as well, which means controlling them properly requires more speed and accuracy, as well as much more caution since the slightest mistake can mean a dead army. In Brood War, units died a bit slower and didn't move nearly as fast on the whole, so controlling them was more a question of know-how than a question of raw speed and accuracy. That said, due to the slower movement speed and dying rate in BW, you were able to properly control more units at once.
On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote: Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
I don't think removing automine overly raises the skill gap. Sure, it adds another element of multitasking, but at the highest levels of BW, who has ever lost by not being good at put workers to mine?
The whole SC2 is easier than BW talk is nothing more than the whining of people who are butthurt that their skills in one game dont transfer completely to another game.
Sorry to break it to you, but you actually never lose on ladder to someone "obviously below your skill level". Your skill is your ability to win in this game, nothing more, nothing less. If you lose, the other guy was better, at least for that one game, everything else is delusional.
Disagree, I never played much SC1, I play much more SC2 because it is easier.
easier to do what? to win? That is not dependent on the game, but on your opponent. and there is no success otherwise to be had in sc2, so the term easy doesnt have any meaning in this context. Is basketball easier than volleyball? sentences like these dont mean anything, if you take a closer look. grammar wise they're correct, but there are no semantics.
Many people feel that as well.
Feelings are irrational. Most people feel that their opponent is a faggot noob after they lost to someone. So most sc2 players are faggot noobs or what?
Why is it a lot of foreigners play SC2? When SC1 started foreigners also participated (in Korea), but soon the majority left and why is that? The mechanics of the game is harder.
What? that doesnt make any sense either. They left because the competition eventually got too fierce to actually win something with their talent/practice regimen. Its a numbers game, for every foreigner leaving there were multiple koreans leaving too for the same reasons. And what the hell do you mean with the mechanics being harder? They may be less comfortable, but winning is exactly as hard (or easy) in both games, since the other player has to deal with the same situation.
I wish it was not, but the fact is it really is... And the skills really transfer because the more successful BW players (not counting old players that already retired) are more successful here. MVP was an A teamer and he is the best player atm, too good to be a coincidence right? Even with carpel tunnel syndrome
You think one player is a large enough sample size to draw a conclusion? Really? That he is the best player atm is a matter of opinion also btw. Top foreigners are mostly Ex-WC3 players. Picking random bits of information is not conlusive.
Evidence in general will not help you with proving a proposition that logically can not be true since it does not even have a meaning upon taking a closer look.
Under the assumption that both games cannot be played perfectly, and both players play under the same conditions, game A can not be harder to win than game B. It can only require a different skillset to win and thus favor one player over the other.
No blabla about this korean or that match or whatever people come up with to mistake their feelings for facts is going to change that. Its logic, it works. Myths dont.
I think harder and having a higher skill ceiling are two different things and shouldn't be viewed as the same. Should this game be harder for the average player? Probably not, but should it have a higher skill ceiling? Hard to say, because no pro's have hit the ceiling yet, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that the higher the ceiling the better.
So now i see lots of people defending SC2 against broodwar. Yes it may be easier, but i see the skill cap widening and hightening majorly within the next 2 expansions. The fact that the AI is smarter should not make it seem worse on the player side. There is evidence that luck plays a factor in BO wins, but there were those in Broodwar too, Kiante wrote in his post that team 8 had been falling to these unluckily to the other teams. Basically SC2 has the chance to become just as good as broodwar, in different ways because they are very different, if we as a community make it thay (along with blizzards help). Just because its not hard now doesn't mean it won't be later. now onto discussing the OP, Yes Sc2 should be harder. It should happen gradually, BW is a great game, but the fact that it was so hard made it a niche thing making the masses not love it and a small group love it. Compared to all other major games and especially to SC2, the BW scene is small and its because of how much you have to know to play the game. The game should become very difficult through complex tactics, larger maps etc. but in a couple years so that the community can develop.
EDIT: i should be clear, my point is that, yay people defending sc2, and that it needs to be harder, but slowly and in a way that widens the skill gap in a way that does not compromise the ability of new players to join the fray even if they are in bronze, you need to be able to gain rank somehow or else the scene will die.
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.
agree with this. also, adding mindless key-mashing so that you have to 1a2a3a4a instead of 1a, or re-hotkeying buildings individually, doesnt make the game more enjoyable; it just makes mechanical abilities more important than strategies...
The whole luck based play argument is really starting to fall apart. More and more we are seeing individual players who are able to consistently win their games against lesser opponents. However this probably doesn't apply to PVP since it is arguably the least developed match-up. MVP for example is almost invincible, he simply doesnt lose Bo3's unless he is outplayed because his strategies are superior.
I don't think you should look at this as just "easier" and "harder". Think of it as a "skill ceiling" and a "skill floor". What Blizzard may be trying to do is raise the skill floor (make noobs better) without lowering the skill ceiling.
Take unit selection. Unlimited unit selection makes the game significantly easier for new players (raises the skill floor), but only slightly affects the skill ceiling (by freeing up some APM).
Imagine if you could auto-build workers (like carrier interceptors). TL would be outraged, because the game would be significantly easier. But, this would only raise the skill floor. Every Silver League player would be instantly better, and pros would be all but unaffected.
Now, some changes Blizzard made have (probably inadventantly) lowered the skill ceiling. Specifically pathfinding (it's been talked about plenty).
In BW, if you don't micro your units, less than half of them will be attacking at the same time. So, spending APM to keep your units together is always good, and significantly so.
In SC2, units are great at pathfinding. They can almost always stay together even without micro. It's easy to get 80%+ of your units attacking with minimal control. What's hard is spreading your units vs AoE damage.
The thing is, it's not an even trade. Keeping your units together is always good, spreading your units is only good vs AoE. So I think you get some net lowering of the skill ceiling.
I believe SC2 uses steering behaviors to achieve its silky smooth unit movement. I wish Blizz would try putting in an avoidance behavior for all friendly units. This would basically cause units to stay farther apart from each other (as though they "think" they're 2x and big as they really are), unless specifically ordered to move closer. They probably tried it and found it negatively affected pathfinding too much. Oh well. Too bad it's not something you can do with Galaxy scripting, or I'd implement it myself. Can't wait for someone to release a bwapi for SC2
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: All please read: this thread was supposed to be arguing the fact that it is the ease of the game that draws the large crowds, and without it it would be a game for the minority, not the masses. It is not really a discussion on whether or not it should be harder, that is for another thread
The entire basis upon stating that, basically the harder the game is the less viewers it has is entirely retarded. It's BECAUSE of how hard a game is that makes it more interesting. It's simply THAT MUCH more amazing to see it witnessed at high levels, feats which very few people in this world are capable of. And only viewers who have a good understanding of the game can appreciate this, which generally makes up VERY little of them. ANY game that is interesting and engaging to a viewer will draw a huge fan base.
SC2 is popular for a myriad of reasons, and being easy to play is definitely not one of them. It gave them a larger player base which to become viewers, but that doesn't actually make the game any more interesting to watch.
It's an interesting discussion that's tagged along with BW vs SC2 and SC2's difficulty, but the opening post is just horrible.
On January 23 2012 22:00 Sated wrote: BW is hard to play because getting units to do what you want is a struggle with the AI/UI. This struggle shouldn't exist. People in 2012 don't want to be fighting against the AI/UI of a game in order to do what they want to do, they want to be fighting against their opponent, and if I am watching a pro-level game then I want to see two players competing with each other - not with the AI/UI
Competition without difficulty of control is absolutely meaningless. It would come down only to strategy and decision making.
Some of the best games historically have been games that are difficult to control. It doesn't need to be Brood War, or even an RTS game.
Take platformers or fighting games or old FPS games, any game that is worth competing in will make it extremely difficult for you to execute something you want to do. Good games will either make it so that you have to hit an extremely tight timings, have almost pixel-perfect accuracy, be extremely fast and have great reflexes, have a great memory under pressure, multitasking, etc. In other words, good games must stress one (and preferably more) of general human skills.
RTS's only way of accomplishing this level of difficulty is to make it so that you have to put in A LOT of physical actions to do what you want to do, and make it so that how good you are in a game depends on your speed and multitasking. There is no way to make an RTS game challenging other than limiting the level of control you have over your in-game assets, and keeping them very basic.
It's all about design. An RTS game where you can only have ONE thing (one building or one unit) selected at any point in time wouldn't necessarily be worse than SC2 because of that specific feature. Things like this don't make a game better or worse, they make games different. Higher level of control reduces human factor in gameplay. For a game designed to be competitive, it only makes sense to keep the controls as low level as possible. Problem with Blizzard is that they also want to sell the game as a casual title, but that's a whole different topic.
Game difficulty doesn't really matter as long as the player has some way to bear upon an opponent with superior raw skill. Games could be playable by a four year old but still be extremely competitive if two players are rewarded in the correct way when exerting all their skill. Given, easy games generally have the low skill 'ceilings' which doesn't allow this.
But this entire post is extremely over-exaggerated. There is no need to begin an argument by saying games with ABSOLUTELY no difficulty = meaningless competition. What does that even have to do with SC2? SC2 clearly takes a fuck ton of skill; Not as much as BW, but a fuck ton. And Blizzard has never stated they intended to remove all difficulty. It just derails any legitimate comparison.
Also, you can reward a player who has superior mechanics without the requirement of repetitive, draconian gameplay features. Blizzard is already trying by throwing in units which can provide additional utility to any strat. Take the oracle. Whether you agree with it or not (I personally despise it) or whether it will be useful enough to really add that much utility, it's one extra unit to control that a player with higher APM can simply abuse a worse player with. One avenue of increasing difficulty definitely lies along giving players more simultaneous options (new units, new roles) in game that require faster decisions and more APM.
Sc2 is still one of the hardest games, probably not compared to broodwar but compared to most other games. Thats why alot of my friends stopped playing it. I also dont think a "skill cap" has been reched yet. Theres alot of stuff which just cant be done perfectly. However, adding new Units to the game is the right way imo, since it makes the game harder for progamers, because they need better decisionmaking and there will be alot of new strats, but it doesnt make the game more stressful for casuals.
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
That was exactly my point -_-. Neither game is 'easy', they're just 'different'.
no sc2 is easy compared to BW
its a simple fact of math. macro in sc2 is easier so is micro. strats the same
so we have a 2-0 in favor of BW
Are you that dense?
Easier =/= easy. Knocking down the CN tower with one punch is easier than breaking the entire planet in half with one punch, that doesn't mean it's easy.
And it's not clear that micro is easier in SC2 than it is in Brood War. Simpler? Yes. It is much simpler, unit control isn't nearly as complex. But complexity and difficulty are not the same thing, units die much faster in SC2 and move faster as well, which means controlling them properly requires more speed and accuracy, as well as much more caution since the slightest mistake can mean a dead army. In Brood War, units died a bit slower and didn't move nearly as fast on the whole, so controlling them was more a question of know-how than a question of raw speed and accuracy. That said, due to the slower movement speed and dying rate in BW, you were able to properly control more units at once.
Why would it require MORE speed and accuracy? There's only a max amount of speed someone could even feasibly put into the game. Besides that i think you are missing the point. Look at the new units. Collossus. Reaver. Hrm can't quite put my finger on the difference..
Do we want artificial barriers which are illogical? Take for example unit selection. You could make game uber hard at capping group selection with 2 units. Is it logical? No it makes no sense whatsoever, however you would argue it. We dont want this, it's terrible idea.
Do we want increase in micro encouraging stuff, brilliant unit design, that could seriously impact battles with flawless execution? Yes, please.
Basically, as long as it is not artificial and stupid self-impairment, but rather gameplay/design mechanics, definetely, we need game harder.
From my point of view it would be stupid to make this game a lot harder all of the sudden. Guess what, the key to the huge success starcraft has is it's accessibility for newer players, who can try this game out and don't be instantly overwhelmed by it like in bw, but still I don't believe in any skill caps out there, sc2 is still a new game and people love to make it look like a lot of things are decided by randomness, however the fact that players like mc, mvp and nestea can win games and therefore tournaments over and over again shows that simply the best players can win on a consistent basis.
Though, I would like to see more units that don't revolve about simple attack-moving, but not because "they're easy" or something but because they're simply boring and add this deathball mentality to the game. All in all, I am quite happy about the state of SC2 right now, although some more units that can be effectively use by newbs, yet still can be used even more effectively in the hands of the pro with sick multitasking skill and stuff would be some really nice additions to the game over all. =)
AS a first time rts player i would just like to say that this game is great and hard enough as is right know. but as a competitive person i would love to see the game get harder and better. you also have to understand the SC2 is still young and BW in like 10 years old its going to take some time for sc2 to even come close to BW if it ever does.(i hope nobody takes that wrong, i hope sc2 becomes as great of a game as BW if not better but as of right now we are still trying to learn the game builds and timings and the metagame. I love sc2 and wish i had gotten in to bw a long time ago and only hope that sc2 goes as far as it can like BW
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
That was exactly my point -_-. Neither game is 'easy', they're just 'different'.
no sc2 is easy compared to BW
its a simple fact of math. macro in sc2 is easier so is micro. strats the same
so we have a 2-0 in favor of BW
Are you that dense?
Easier =/= easy. Knocking down the CN tower with one punch is easier than breaking the entire planet in half with one punch, that doesn't mean it's easy.
And it's not clear that micro is easier in SC2 than it is in Brood War. Simpler? Yes. It is much simpler, unit control isn't nearly as complex. But complexity and difficulty are not the same thing, units die much faster in SC2 and move faster as well, which means controlling them properly requires more speed and accuracy, as well as much more caution since the slightest mistake can mean a dead army. In Brood War, units died a bit slower and didn't move nearly as fast on the whole, so controlling them was more a question of know-how than a question of raw speed and accuracy. That said, due to the slower movement speed and dying rate in BW, you were able to properly control more units at once.
Why would it require MORE speed and accuracy? There's only a max amount of speed someone could even feasibly put into the game. Besides that i think you are missing the point. Look at the new units. Collossus. Reaver. Hrm can't quite put my finger on the difference..
And now put them both in the same enviroments and do your little comparison again...
On January 24 2012 02:49 devPLEASE wrote: I play random with no rts background at all and I 6 pooled and cannon rushed and mass raxed my way into top 20 diamond. I think that's pretty easy.
A game's difficulty is totally decided by how hard it is to achieve top 20 diamond.
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. If this game was easy everyone would be in GSL or MLG winning, but I don't think that is the case cause nobodies don't come through the open bracket (MLG) and winning a tournament. I believe blizzard know what they are doing they already want to try to break the deathball problem, only such few players don't play like that. Blizzard is the one who probably make the best RTS games atm and their games live for several years than most other RTS have. We still have to wait for the next two expansion to really consider the game is a more of a complete form then wait a year or two to see the game level out (along with patches and such). This game is still young compared to BW, I find it just not right atm to call anything out on this game, it needs time. It's not like SC was magically awesome when it came out, it took time to improve it.
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
Apparently I am a Master at Starcraft 2. Master... I feel like the biggest scrub alive, I shouldn't even be in Platinum to be honest. To be honest, most of my enemies shouldn't even be in Platinum.
I will quote Day9 (paraphrased):
The only thing I miss is the physicality of the units [...] The ceiling what you can do more seems to be flattened. All the stuff you could do with mutalisks seem gone.
I want that every race is stronger influenced by player skill. I want mutalisks ten times more effective if the player has the skill. I want to be crushed by opponents cause they own me with their skill, not by luck, abuse or gimmicky strategies.
I was an avid player of Protoss in BW and of course started in Star2 with Protoss. I quit. It is disgusting. Thir race is disgusting. You can literally get into Master with 50 APM and 20 minute turtle. This race doesn't require any skill if you choose this strategy. I'm so sad, cause I love Protoss, I really wanted to play Protoss, but it is just stupid. On the other hand it is also disgusting that Terran a-click all-ins are so strong or Zerg macro is at some point completely overpowering in a ladder environment.
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...
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
they are two different games and they can't be compared in this matter. You could just look for some finesse that Sc1 had and that made it awesome, hoping that it will break into sc2, but people should stop saying and complaining that sc2 is too easy and so on; you can always switch to sc1.
As a spectator: I'm by far more interested in strategic decisions and their execution than raw macro. Sure, it's incredibly impressive how much BW pros can do at once without stuff like automining, unlimited unit selection etc. But it doesn't make the game itself more interesting to watch. The skill ceiling in Starcraft 2 is far from being hit and until it is, I don't think we can really decide if the game is too easy in a way that would affect better players to lose to worse players.
As a player: I'm a total noob and came into Starcraft 2 without any rts experience and not much gaming experience at all. It can already be frustrating and I don't think I would have stayed with this game if it was as hard as BW. The changes mainly cater to new and newbie players, which isn't a bad thing. Starcraft shouldn't just be there for pros to master but also for players like me to enjoy.
For those saying how good BW was because people had to have lots of control groups and lots of clicking, let's take that a step further and make a even better game.
BW got 12 units on each group? Let's make it without group units. You have to micro each individually. Probes keep mining after you order them to? That's too easy. Let's have a BW where you have to click on probes to bring back resources to nexus and go to mine again. Now answer: That's a hell of a lot harder right? But how much more interesting is it to watch and play?
The point is for the game to be hard in interesting places to watch and play.
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.
On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote: The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
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.
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.
I'm happy it's not just BW with better graphics. I wouldn't mind that much if it became a little bit harder though. But not by removing "comfort" functions that just weren't in BW because the game is so old. For example: DO NOT make the AI dumber, DO NOT restrict groupings to a small amount of units, etc.
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?
It's a lot harder to differentiate players merely from looking at their games.
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, pleas explain to me MMA and MVP if you are going to talk about a "skill cap" that once you reach you can only advance so little from, hell even Nestea and DRG, the only race that seems to be as luck based as there is no real way to break a "good" win rating to a "Flash" win rating is toss where non quite seems to be able to do it, and yet if some "ahm" nice ppl might stop saying shit about a certain EU toss that is up to date the only pro ( i believe ) that has 100% win ratio in torunaments boX vs most koreans code S pros including nestea and mvp and 70%+ vs most of them counting each game than we might see the protoss " semi - bonjwa" again after MC fall just like we have the above mentioned for zerg and terran. The game will become harder with new units and balance patches ( hopefully ), i and many other will proly not be able to enjoy it with the bw "bad AI" and "control group at a max of 12 units + no buildings control groups" simply cuz we are used to it being another way since aoe2 and up to date,so if we have to find something "hard" for sc2 it won't be the same "hard" as it is in bw.
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?
These are artificial storylines made up by artosis, sorry. Every single Korean Terran, and many foreigners, have achieved around the same level of marine splitting and stutter step that marineking has (watch any recent GSL game). Same with MC forcefields, ect. I give you an unmarked replay of a Korean TvZ and you will have NO CHANCE of identifying the players, same with every other race/mu unless you happen to identify a specific build. Every player is slowly morphing into the same player, there are very few stylistic differences and they are disappearing fast.
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?
yes please. cause besides mb marinekings marine micro there is nothing impressive.
The game must be appealing for new players while it must be a challenge for the best, i don't know where Starcraft stands in this but i feeling the learning curve is very low for sc2 compared to other games (like LoL). As a master league player i would like the game to get even harder, but not as hard as BW, i don't like how the mechanics in BW works.
Macroing is to easy in sc2. I miss the brute strength required of brood war to macro. Time to macro as terran. Ready? 5 sss, 6 aaaaaaaa, 7 ss, 8 dd. Tap through all production as its building while looking at army and making sure your not supply blocked and mule-scanning appropriately. And hey! You are now macroing like a champ. Congrats go win the gsl.
-First off SC2 is NOT easy to play. Its a VERY mechanical game, second only to BW
-Yes, upsets happen and the underdog sometimes takes the win. Still, its mostly the same players going deep in tournys and taking the big wins (MVP, Nestea, MC, Stephano and so forth), which is DIRECT EVIDENCE that no one has reached the skill ceiling yet or that only the very best players have.
-How can you even say that SC2 is in a bad light? Thousands of people are watching streams every day and whenever there is a big tournament it, aswell, has thousands of fans coming to watch the players and the games. Imo its the most spectator friendly E-sport out there.
-Then you claim that you dont have to work hard to get to the top. Excuse me!! What? Ask HuK or any other progamer how they feel about that statement.
-About the ladder I have never felt I lost to someone who was obviously a lesser player than myself. I have lost plenty of times to players I would consider even in skill, which just shows that the matchmaking system works very well. If you think you lose to lesser players all the time its you, and not the game that need fixing.
-SC2 is much bigger than BW, not because of its "simplicity" but becase of its accessability and because of everyone having internet, youtube streamers and so forth.
-Finally I dont think you can make the game harder without breaking it. By breaking I mean introduce 14 years old mechanics that have absolutely no place in a game in 2012 or in other words: Making the game terrible. I would even argue that SC2 is harder on the prolevel than BW simply because of the much, much harder competition. Having 10.000 opponents is harder than having a 100. THAT is the real reason why there is no "Flash or "Jaedong" in SC2.
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 .
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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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
This probably has been mentioned before but where is the option to vote the game should become easier? This option should at least be in a poll if the game should become more difficult
Annyway:i think the game should become mechanically easier Not so much the micro, but more the macro. Atm macro takes to much time compared to the more fun part of microing your units and moving around your armies so: the game should become "easier" Unfortunatly this option is not in the poll, so i didnt vote
edit/suplement:
It would not kill sc as an esports,how difficult a game is (mechanically) has little to do with its popularity. If annything the relation is inverse , definatly after a cerain point. (example the huge popularity of lol wich is considered an easier game then dota and such, it had 120k vieuwers in kiev) The skill ceiling will still be near infinite, so easier is relative here, i just means that macro should take less time. The fun when watching streams is in watching the armys and engagements (at least for me) and not watching players macro.
On January 24 2012 04:04 ejozl wrote: 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.
Strategy being guessing games and 'action packed' being fewer shorter engagements than BW. Got it.
On January 24 2012 04:21 Rassy wrote: This probably has been mentioned before but where is the option to vote the game should become easier? This option should at least be in a poll if the game should become more difficult
Annyway:i think the game should become mechanically easier Not so much the micro, but more the macro. Atm macro takes to much time compared to the more fun part of microing your units so: the game should become "easier" Unfortunatly this option is not in the poll, so i didnt vote
Well, that would completely destroy the game as an ESPORT, which is kinda what keeps the community alive imo.
MVP/NesTea/etc. These guys trained in professional BW settings for years, solidifying their RTS experience and skills. In less than 1 year, people who have never played RTS games before can take games off these guys due to the lack of mechanical skill required to play Protoss and Zerg. I'm sorry but MVP and MMA should never lose a game to someone like TiTaN or BlinG or NaniWa. You would never see a Chess grandmaster lose to an amatuer. Theres a pretty clear reason why we've been able to see a number of Protoss and Zerg foreigner champions compete with Koreans but not a single foreigner Terran has ever come close. SC2 Terran at least requires some degree of mechanical skill and mastering of techniques to remain potent at the pro level. Zerg and Protoss are almost all "macro" and 1a. I put macro in quotes because it is such a reduced and watered down version of SC1 macro that it's laughable.
This might sound like whining, but hey, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro that disagrees.
On January 24 2012 04:23 SupLilSon wrote: MVP/NesTea/etc. These guys trained in professional BW settings for years, solidifying their RTS experience and skills. In less than 1 year, people who have never played RTS games before can take games off these guys due to the lack of mechanical skill required to play Protoss and Zerg. I'm sorry but MVP and MMA should never lose a game to someone like TiTaN or BlinG or NaniWa. You would never see a Chess grandmaster lose to an amatuer. Theres a pretty clear reason why we've been able to see a number of Protoss and Zerg foreigner champions compete with Koreans but not a single foreigner Terran has ever come close. SC2 Terran at least requires some degree of mechanical skill and mastering of techniques to remain potent at the pro level. Zerg and Protoss are almost all macro and 1a.
This might sound like whining, but hey, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro that disagrees.
Drewbie took a game off MMA haha. And I take it you don't count Jinro as a foreigner?
On January 24 2012 04:19 FezTheCaliph wrote: 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
Pretty good assesment of the situation. Majority of the viewers don't watch both of the games due to their difficulty, but because they have the means to follow it and they enjoy watching two armies battle in real time. That's about it.
True, if you get to the subtlety of the games then BW is going to be the one with much more depth. But aside from really hardcore fans or those who are just curious to find out about it, many viewers might not even actively care about them at all, as in them not being a major factor in their following of the game.
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.
wtf can u not read?
thats not even relevant to our conversation. he said the game is easy because good macro makes you btr than 99% of other players. which is because good macro is so hard to perform that 99% of players have nowhere near top notch macro. all other game factors ignored. looks like your trying to get your post count up. you might as well go into the idra fanclub thread and post about your local weather. thats how relevant you are to this topic
I'll just be waiting for the day for the sc2 community to either stop saying that they don't want the game harder like bw or to stop complaining that X race is just a-move.
Do you guys think that making the game even faster than the current "faster" mode would be one option to rise the skill cap? Or would it make the game too fast to understand as a viewer? Also i think it's not enough for mechanics to be hard: they also have to fun. Imagine a game where you could only select one unit at the time and you must order each attack individually. This game would be hard as hell, but the micro would be monotonious and boring. In sc2 in order to have good stalker micro you must watch your unit's health/shields and blink wounded ones back and target fire enemys and if possible, also dodge missiles and make decissions such as "Do i blink up to the high ground?" or "Do i blink offencively to chase those units?"
No, we do not want the game to be harder. Pros are still super far away from the skill ceiling. Average master league players are TERRIBLE at the game. I'm mid-masters and I am GOD AWFUL at this game.
To be more precise: I play Zerg. My macro is far from perfect, even just on 2-3 bases. My ability to multi-task is pretty terrible -- as soon as I start having to defend multiple drops, or attacking in multiple places while also expanding, injecting, spreading creep, etc. I just fall apart. I've played 1500+ games, and this game is still way too hard for me to even think about approaching a pro level of skill. I am, however, a mid-masters player and am one of the statistically top players in the world (I mean top 5%, not top 500).
Sure, pros will occasionally drop a game to a random unknown player. But that does not mean the game is too easy. It just means there is a bit of randomness, and pros occasionally play bad games. There is a reason why Mvp and Nestea ALWAYS do well in Code S, and there is a reason why Koreans dominate MLG. It's because the skill cap is way higher than pro skill level now, and the best players outperform those who are not as good.
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.
wtf can u not read?
thats not even relevant to our conversation. he said the game is easy because good macro makes you btr than 99% of other players. which is because good macro is so hard to perform that 99% of players have nowhere near top notch macro. all other game factors ignored. looks like your trying to get your post count up. you might as well go into the idra fanclub thread and post about your local weather. thats how relevant you are to this topic
Wow rage more because I disagree with you slightly?
Edit: If it's not clear what I said let me rephrase it. You guys seem to think good macro makes you better than 99% of the players, and I'm saying that's only true in the NA server. On harder servers, you have to have a lot more than just good macro, which is actually a good thing about the game.
Just because NA players are terrible doesn't mean the game's hard.
I feel like a lot of the things that changed from BW were more fixing design flaws than trying to change the game. A good example would be the control groups. As much as people like to claim that BW's system "required more micro" to move units, the majority of it consisted of monotonous "box-and-go" control. I sometimes joke about Ex-BW player's streams that have them APM spamming workers at the beginning of games, not because it is useful, but that boxing is an uncontrollable muscle spasm caused by seeing Starcraft units. The real things that could be changed to reflect BW strategy are factors such as defender's advantage, more positional-dependent combat, and stronger benefits for controlling high ground.
I hope SC2 stays how it is now, and that HOTS makes minor changes.. NOT the changes they have already shown... :-\ In fact I don't even want minor changes, I love the game so much It's hard to imagine a different game.
It's tough. I liked the sentiment of the op. I used to watch BW starting in 07 and I loved that game though I don't have half the understanding of it that I believe I do have of SC2.
For me it comes down to the fact that SC2 for all its faults is a really fun game to play (a lot of the time) relative to BW. The mechanical ceiling of BW would just require so much more of an investment than SC2. My comp issues and thesis work aside, I think I could make a pretty decent run in Masters and execute faux pro builds fairly competently and enjoy doing that. The races are pretty unique and all fairly fun.
That said I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for watching the game for multiple reasons. The muta ball is one brilliant example of this. One player litterally just builds this snowball unit and moves it forward, backwards and side to side with great effect. There's very little micro skill that can be observed or appreciated by the build or the execution of it. There's a rudimentary and even easy transition from it too to slow moving air tanks... not dark swarm pushes or epic defenses. These are not Jaedong's mutas or hell even that bastard SHiine's. They are simply a fast mobile unit that does a lot of damage.
The game lacks the cute units that make for epic come backs. I think terran is the only race that's truly resilient in sc2. Zergs have an issue with efficiency at a certain point and toss once dead stays dead.
Unlike BW there are less feats that look godlike or amazing. These players look a lot more human. Boxer's dropships are a 100x more impressive than the shift queue drops of sc2. There is nothing that begins to match the epicness that is sair/reaver. A lot of the tricks done by sc2 pros (esp foreigners) look human rather than godlike.
To summarize, an easier game is much more accessible. A much harder game is more easy to appreciate.
edit: while I'm talking about the viewing experience I should concede that it could also be an issue of storylines. None of MVP's victories approach the 08 incruit finals let alone Jangbi Fantasy of this past fall or any of Flash's blowouts.
On January 24 2012 04:23 SupLilSon wrote: MVP/NesTea/etc. These guys trained in professional BW settings for years, solidifying their RTS experience and skills. In less than 1 year, people who have never played RTS games before can take games off these guys due to the lack of mechanical skill required to play Protoss and Zerg. I'm sorry but MVP and MMA should never lose a game to someone like TiTaN or BlinG or NaniWa. You would never see a Chess grandmaster lose to an amatuer. Theres a pretty clear reason why we've been able to see a number of Protoss and Zerg foreigner champions compete with Koreans but not a single foreigner Terran has ever come close. SC2 Terran at least requires some degree of mechanical skill and mastering of techniques to remain potent at the pro level. Zerg and Protoss are almost all macro and 1a.
This might sound like whining, but hey, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro that disagrees.
Drewbie took a game off MMA haha. And I take it you don't count Jinro as a foreigner?
Well, yea, Jinro had some good runs early on in GSL. But remember these were the same seasons that Artosis qualified for. Then there was Thorzain winning TSL, but everyone knows that tournament was completely plauged by lag issues for the Korean players. And yea, theres a few instances of foreign Terrans winning a match or 2 against a Korean but honestly which foreign Terran has the same power as HuK, IdrA, Stephano or NaniWa against Koreans?
On January 24 2012 04:23 SupLilSon wrote: MVP/NesTea/etc. These guys trained in professional BW settings for years, solidifying their RTS experience and skills. In less than 1 year, people who have never played RTS games before can take games off these guys due to the lack of mechanical skill required to play Protoss and Zerg. I'm sorry but MVP and MMA should never lose a game to someone like TiTaN or BlinG or NaniWa. You would never see a Chess grandmaster lose to an amatuer. Theres a pretty clear reason why we've been able to see a number of Protoss and Zerg foreigner champions compete with Koreans but not a single foreigner Terran has ever come close. SC2 Terran at least requires some degree of mechanical skill and mastering of techniques to remain potent at the pro level. Zerg and Protoss are almost all "macro" and 1a. I put macro in quotes because it is such a reduced and watered down version of SC1 macro that it's laughable.
This might sound like whining, but hey, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro that disagrees.
I see what you are saying about new players taking games off of the top players, but that should happen in this game as it is not nearly as "figured out" as BW. No one has seen every strategy yet. Each new GSL season, some player with a previously underused strategy/style does fairly well by exploiting weaknesses in the current metagame. Once the more experienced players play a couple games against them, their success slows down and eventually they stop winning games.
Top Terran players like MMA and MVP are more likely to lose to a well executed P or Z build than to another T build because they don't know the ins and outs of the opponent's race as well as they know their own. Going after the #1 Terran player with the same forces/builds he already knows like the back of his hand is very difficult. Coming at him from a completely foreign (zing!) perspective makes it easier to get in cheap shots and throw them off their game. Every player should lose games, even the top players, and a lot of these are losses because of build orders/strategies as much as from mistakes and mis-clicks. The latter will happen less with MMA and MVP, but it still happens.
On topic: I think the game has the right amount of difficulty as it stands. It reminds me of the Capcom fighting games, with sort of an inverted bell curve of ability. When you first pick up the game, you can quickly find simple strats that are relatively easy to execute (1a armies are comparable to button mashing in fighters. Sometimes you just get lucky.) As you start to learn more about the game and metagame, you slightly alter your build into something more complex, losing some of your concentration because it is now split on managing 3 bases and playing for the long haul, not just 1 base-all-in. I know when I did this in ladder, I started losing a lot more than when I was just 7 RR or 6 Pool. But, eventually being able to execute more and more complex strategies while holding off the easier to execute attacks from my opponent helped me to climb back up on the bell curve.
At one end you have guys that 6 pooled into Masters. On the other you have guys like MMA/MVP. At some point, the 6-pooler will get lucky and pull off his more easily executed strategy against a much better player and take the better player by surprise. I see nothing wrong with this as it keeps all players 'honest' and makes for better tournaments because some unknown underdog can take at least a couple games off of the Best of the Best. Does this mean the game is "easy"? No. Just like in Chess, some guy with a limited knowledge can be doing things that make so little sense to the Chess Master, confusing them and possibly causing them to make silly mistakes. It's the human element of competitive games, and it's what makes it entertaining to watch for a lot of people.
I don't really see why this needs to be mutually exclusive. The sorts of things I would like added would keep the skill the same for bronzies, but allow for greater levels of skill for pro's. For instance- muta micro, wraith micro, vulture micro. The mechanics to do those sorts of micro tricks while macroing at the same time is insane. But those same units can be 1a just the same (or move command with the mouse if you don't even know about attack move.) They just weren't nearly as effective when in the hands of the pro's. But mutalisks are pretty straightforward. Grab 12, move them forward to attack, grab the next 12, rinse repeat. But to take away the rapid reflex, muta control that could dart into a base to pick up stray units at will- why would we ever take that away when nothing better replaces it?
Carrier micro too- noobs would use them just the same as 1a, but pro's could attack retreat and hover across cliffs. Reavers were actually easy to use- they just weren't very effective without micro. But you could send them on their poky way or leave them for defence.
Ok, so maybe getting rid of smart casting would make things harder for noobs. But honestly, real newbs don't really use those sorts of units anyways. And if they did, I'm sure they would be just as happy to fire off one really awesome spell that killed stuff than to spam 't' with little discernible difference to the marauders, tanks or roaches.
Or take Dark Swarm- zerg was easy to use as newb. Make banks of hatcheries so you can select 12 larvae at a time and build 200 zerglings and send them at a base. True newbs with their 12-40 apm aren't going to use Dark Swarm anyways. But it's a tool that can be used by even D- or E players going on iCCup.
And that's why I don't really see it as mutually exclusive. Newbs will gravitate to the easier to use units and experiment with the cool ones. (I taught one guy to macro, but then he just made masses of goliaths so that he could have 6 control groups to 1a2a3a4a5a6a across the map. He eventually learned that straight goliaths is a bad strategy.) But you don't take away tools for the pro's to use.
And if we're talking about problems of making the game harder- Blizzard kinda already did that with the arbitrary macro mechanics. Consider, if Protoss didn't have chronoboost, how would it be balanced? Why the build times would be sped up. What about inject larvae? Larvae would spawn faster or Zerg units would become tougher. They've pulled out some pretty straight forward stuff to make the game harder and rebalanced the timings and cost based on that. When really it could have been buried in adjusting the numbers a bit and forget about the macro mechanics altogether.
The question raised in this thread adresses imo the wrong issue.
You don't need to make the game harder in terms of accessability. Everyone can kick a ball, soccer is easy to learn, yet there are players like Lionel Messi who shine above all.
I don't want the game to be harder, I want it to be better. SC2 has many gameplay and design issues which do not stem from unlimited unit selection, smart casting or automining or whatever.
Units lack micro potential, clumping has its issues, no defender's advantage... The list goes on, there are tons of threads about these topics out there. These are the true issues.
Hell, I'd even say the game is too fast. How do you want to micro when everything disappears in the blink of an eye? No, the games is mechanically difficult enough. But the game is so poorly designed that players, which could take the mechanical aspects of the game to a higher level, are limited by non-microable units and lack of incentives to split up armies and use apm for multitasking.
And the reason why some players, who are mechanically inferior to others, can still beat big names is due to build order wins, easy-peasy all-ins, lack of scouting and units like the banshee, which is the greatest joke of all RTS units Blizzard has ever put in a game.
On January 24 2012 04:21 Rassy wrote: This probably has been mentioned before but where is the option to vote the game should become easier? This option should at least be in a poll if the game should become more difficult
Annyway:i think the game should become mechanically easier Not so much the micro, but more the macro. Atm macro takes to much time compared to the more fun part of microing your units and moving around your armies so: the game should become "easier" Unfortunatly this option is not in the poll, so i didnt vote
edit/suplement:
It would not kill sc as an esports,how difficult a game is (mechanically) has little to do with its popularity. If annything the relation is inverse , definatly after a cerain point. (example the huge popularity of lol wich is considered an easier game then dota and such, it had 120k vieuwers in kiev) The skill ceiling will still be near infinite, so easier is relative here, i just means that macro should take less time. The fun when watching streams is in watching the armys and engagements (at least for me) and not watching players macro.
I'm curious, how would you make macro easier in sc2? It's already at its easiest point imo ..
I got into Starcraft 2 due to, in part, the huge amount of hype over the years about BW. I was always interested in BW but by the time I started looking into the competitive scene, it had already developed to the point that I felt like it would be too much work to catch up to the people still playing. The relative skill difference between the lowest ranks of iccup and the lowest ranks of sc2 is huge. The learning curve was just too steep to comfortably get involved in playing BW super competitively.
With sc2 on the horizon, I decided to get involved at the ground level in order to see how the metagame and strategies developed in order to be a part of the community instead of on the outside trying to get in. A big part of sc2 success is from people like me who knew about brood war but felt that it was either too old or had too tough of a time understanding it. Inevitably, sc2 will get the same way as the community shrinks, expansions are released and the meta game develops. However, as long as the game continues to get exposure, there will continue to be new and inexperienced players for other new players to learn with. I really think that the ladder system (as opposed to the iccup system that required you to be relatively informed to get involved with) will always help bring in new players and make sure they find decent matches.
On a separate point, i don't think there should be more micro or that macro should get easier. Starcraft is an economy based and macro focused game. The Warcraft series, particularly wc3, has always been blizzards micro based rts. There will be a wc4 and it will most likely be micro based and involve hero units just like wc3. Making sc2 more micro intensive would start to turn it into a reskinned wc3. I understand that wc4 is likely a ways off and that many players are not interested in going back to wc3 but I would encourage you to just hold off if you want a micro based game instead of arguing to redesign the existing game.
On January 24 2012 04:21 Rassy wrote: This probably has been mentioned before but where is the option to vote the game should become easier? This option should at least be in a poll if the game should become more difficult
Annyway:i think the game should become mechanically easier Not so much the micro, but more the macro. Atm macro takes to much time compared to the more fun part of microing your units and moving around your armies so: the game should become "easier" Unfortunatly this option is not in the poll, so i didnt vote
edit/suplement:
It would not kill sc as an esports,how difficult a game is (mechanically) has little to do with its popularity. If annything the relation is inverse , definatly after a cerain point. (example the huge popularity of lol wich is considered an easier game then dota and such, it had 120k vieuwers in kiev) The skill ceiling will still be near infinite, so easier is relative here, i just means that macro should take less time. The fun when watching streams is in watching the armys and engagements (at least for me) and not watching players macro.
I'm curious, how would you make macro easier in sc2? It's already at its easiest point imo ..
you should play dawn of war 2 if you think sc2 macro cannot be made easier.
On January 24 2012 04:21 Rassy wrote: This probably has been mentioned before but where is the option to vote the game should become easier? This option should at least be in a poll if the game should become more difficult
Annyway:i think the game should become mechanically easier Not so much the micro, but more the macro. Atm macro takes to much time compared to the more fun part of microing your units and moving around your armies so: the game should become "easier" Unfortunatly this option is not in the poll, so i didnt vote
edit/suplement:
It would not kill sc as an esports,how difficult a game is (mechanically) has little to do with its popularity. If annything the relation is inverse , definatly after a cerain point. (example the huge popularity of lol wich is considered an easier game then dota and such, it had 120k vieuwers in kiev) The skill ceiling will still be near infinite, so easier is relative here, i just means that macro should take less time. The fun when watching streams is in watching the armys and engagements (at least for me) and not watching players macro.
I'm curious, how would you make macro easier in sc2? It's already at its easiest point imo ..
i remember when some people used to argue that queens should have auto larva inject lol
On January 24 2012 04:21 Rassy wrote: This probably has been mentioned before but where is the option to vote the game should become easier? This option should at least be in a poll if the game should become more difficult
Annyway:i think the game should become mechanically easier Not so much the micro, but more the macro. Atm macro takes to much time compared to the more fun part of microing your units and moving around your armies so: the game should become "easier" Unfortunatly this option is not in the poll, so i didnt vote
edit/suplement:
It would not kill sc as an esports,how difficult a game is (mechanically) has little to do with its popularity. If annything the relation is inverse , definatly after a cerain point. (example the huge popularity of lol wich is considered an easier game then dota and such, it had 120k vieuwers in kiev) The skill ceiling will still be near infinite, so easier is relative here, i just means that macro should take less time. The fun when watching streams is in watching the armys and engagements (at least for me) and not watching players macro.
I'm curious, how would you make macro easier in sc2? It's already at its easiest point imo ..
Eh don't mind him. He is just playing the wrong game. Sounds to me that he should play something like wc3 or some less competitive RTS like Red Alert or Supreme Commander where you focus on battle and units like he wants it.
Also the "Atm macro takes to much time compared to the more fun part of microing your units and moving around your armies" is a big deal when it comes to Starcraft. For Rassy and many many other players this is hard and they kinda fall apart with this kind of multitasking and that is one thing that sets bad players apart from good players that actually can manage their bases while roaming around on the map and dropping. Blizzard would be crazy to make this kind of thing easier.
Looking at the finals rom kiev where mma dominated dimaga on terminus RE I think the game needs to be harder. One of the casters asked what can you possibly do to stop MMA and I sincerely wondered the same: His macro never slipped, his decision making was very good, and his micro is obviously top notch. There's not much room left for improvement, I think people will soon hit the ceiling in sc2.
On January 24 2012 05:56 Iamyournoob wrote: The question raised in this thread adresses imo the wrong issue.
You don't need to make the game harder in terms of accessability. Everyone can kick a ball, soccer is easy to learn, yet there are players like Lionel Messi who shine above all.
I don't want the game to be harder, I want it to be better. SC2 has many gameplay and design issues which do not stem from unlimited unit selection, smart casting or automining or whatever.
Units lack micro potential, clumping has its issues, no defender's advantage... The list goes on, there are tons of threads about these topics out there. These are the true issues.
Hell, I'd even say the game is too fast. How do you want to micro when everything disappears in the blink of an eye? No, the games is mechanically difficult enough. But the game is so poorly designed that players, which could take the mechanical aspects of the game to a higher level, are limited by non-microable units and lack of incentives to split up armies and use apm for multitasking.
And the reason why some players, who are mechanically inferior to others, can still beat big names is due to build order wins, easy-peasy all-ins, lack of scouting and units like the banshee, which is the greatest joke of all RTS units Blizzard has ever put in a game.
Regarding cheese, how is the banshee that different from the DT? I'm not saying the banshee is a good unit, because it's not, it's a unit that fails to have functionality after a window of a few minutes.
But, being able to cheese a better player has always existed. In BW, DT openings/sometimes with shuttle were the epitome of coinflip allins that could net you a win against a better player. But, DT's are a great unit that is useful throughout the game, at least partially because they come from the gateway.
I think the problem with banshees is not cheese, but the same problem that this thread is discussing. Here we have a unit that is only useful in a small set of parameters and has no interesting combat properties, that fits into no overall dynamic. This is basically what Blizzard has done with so many aspects of this game: NOT being able to see the forest from the trees.
On January 24 2012 05:56 Iamyournoob wrote: The question raised in this thread adresses imo the wrong issue.
You don't need to make the game harder in terms of accessability. Everyone can kick a ball, soccer is easy to learn, yet there are players like Lionel Messi who shine above all.
I don't want the game to be harder, I want it to be better. SC2 has many gameplay and design issues which do not stem from unlimited unit selection, smart casting or automining or whatever.
Units lack micro potential, clumping has its issues, no defender's advantage... The list goes on, there are tons of threads about these topics out there. These are the true issues.
Hell, I'd even say the game is too fast. How do you want to micro when everything disappears in the blink of an eye? No, the games is mechanically difficult enough. But the game is so poorly designed that players, which could take the mechanical aspects of the game to a higher level, are limited by non-microable units and lack of incentives to split up armies and use apm for multitasking.
And the reason why some players, who are mechanically inferior to others, can still beat big names is due to build order wins, easy-peasy all-ins, lack of scouting and units like the banshee, which is the greatest joke of all RTS units Blizzard has ever put in a game.
Regarding cheese, how is the banshee that different from the DT? I'm not saying the banshee is a good unit, because it's not, it's a unit that fails to have functionality after a window of a few minutes.
But, being able to cheese a better player has always existed. In BW, DT openings/sometimes with shuttle were the epitome of coinflip allins that could net you a win against a better player. But, DT's are a great unit that is useful throughout the game, at least partially because they come from the gateway.
I think the problem with banshees is not cheese, but the same problem that this thread is discussing. Here we have a unit that is only useful in a small set of parameters and has no interesting combat properties, that fits into no overall dynamic. This is basically what Blizzard has done with so many aspects of this game: NOT being able to see the forest from the trees.
He's got a point, would you rather have a unit that you could ONLY DT rush with? Or a unit that is potentially useful throughout the game. I'd rather have a DT that comes out of the barracks.
On January 24 2012 06:00 komakino wrote: On a separate point, i don't think there should be more micro or that macro should get easier. Starcraft is an economy based and macro focused game. The Warcraft series, particularly wc3, has always been blizzards micro based rts. There will be a wc4 and it will most likely be micro based and involve hero units just like wc3. Making sc2 more micro intensive would start to turn it into a reskinned wc3. I understand that wc4 is likely a ways off and that many players are not interested in going back to wc3 but I would encourage you to just hold off if you want a micro based game instead of arguing to redesign the existing game.
I think a couple complaints got exaggerated as a reaction to Warcraft 3. One was that WC3 units died too slowly, therefore we need units that die extremely fast, as a result we got units that die ridiculously fast and engagements that are finished in a few seconds.
The second that Starcraft BW was a macro game and Warcraft 3 was a micro game. In reality, Starcraft BW is both. That's what has always made it so impressive. You're creating these giant armies, but at the same time, you're poking around with a shuttle and a reaver, or setting off all these storms, or throwing down dark swarms and hopping lurkers forward with cracklings running through.
Both are crucial to make it as exciting as it is. Take away macro and you get DoW or WC3 or in the most extreme form: LoL or HoN. Take away micro and you get SupCom2. And of those all, SupCom2 is the least viewer friendly.
On January 24 2012 01:43 MCDayC wrote: The only question is whether SC2 has a skill cap reachable by humans. I would say that it doesn't, that, like Brood War, we will never seen humans perfectly execute a game that's not a 5 minute cheese. If the skill cap is above what is physically possible, then talk about hardness doesn't matter. At that point, game difficultly is entirely decided by competition. The reason why people say BW is so hard is because of the competition. Over a decade of mechanical and strategical development has meant that competing in BW is crushingly difficult.
A perfectly executed defense would still die to a not nearly perfect cheese if the BO advantage was such. We aren't arguing if the game skill cap was reached the problem are luck based engagements and not being able to get yourself back in the lead if you made a small mistake and your overall skill is a lot bigger or simply said skill not giving a big enough benefit to overcome a BO advantage or an SMALL early mistake. I'll give an example recently in bw PvP bisu managed to destroy a greedy protoss who went an FE with delayed goon range he DESTROYED the other player next week we had the same situation between two mid level progamers and the protoss just couldn't kill the other protoss without any early game mistakes it just came to micro and maybe a better executed timing, but the goons still hadn't had range in both situations.
And Losira held Zenio's (???) 8pool two times with hatch first, while a lot of progamers die time and time again in the same situation.
Thats good but thats not enough if it were then we would see more constant results from people and ZvZ is one of the most skill based MUs it's basically who can drone more and defend with the least banelings, but PvP is just horrible in that regard.
Mid/late game fights are extremely fast paced, and fairly hard to keep up with from both a player and viewer perspective. There's just too much going on.
On January 24 2012 01:43 MCDayC wrote: The only question is whether SC2 has a skill cap reachable by humans. I would say that it doesn't, that, like Brood War, we will never seen humans perfectly execute a game that's not a 5 minute cheese. If the skill cap is above what is physically possible, then talk about hardness doesn't matter. At that point, game difficultly is entirely decided by competition. The reason why people say BW is so hard is because of the competition. Over a decade of mechanical and strategical development has meant that competing in BW is crushingly difficult.
A perfectly executed defense would still die to a not nearly perfect cheese if the BO advantage was such. We aren't arguing if the game skill cap was reached the problem are luck based engagements and not being able to get yourself back in the lead if you made a small mistake and your overall skill is a lot bigger or simply said skill not giving a big enough benefit to overcome a BO advantage or an SMALL early mistake. I'll give an example recently in bw PvP bisu managed to destroy a greedy protoss who went an FE with delayed goon range he DESTROYED the other player next week we had the same situation between two mid level progamers and the protoss just couldn't kill the other protoss without any early game mistakes it just came to micro and maybe a better executed timing, but the goons still hadn't had range in both situations.
And Losira held Zenio's (???) 8pool two times with hatch first, while a lot of progamers die time and time again in the same situation.
Thats good but thats not enough if it were then we would see more constant results from people and ZvZ is one of the most skill based MUs it's basically who can drone more and defend with the least banelings, but PvP is just horrible in that regard.
i think i have seen losira hold a 6pool drone all in with a hatch first, pretty crazy defence
I highly doubt that the skill ceiling has been reached.
As for making the game harder, one should not just make the entire game harder per say, but create options that are hard to execute, pay back greatly, and are not necessary for the casual gamer. Like marine splitting, if you can do it, you get great return vs banelings. If you can't sucks, but it isn't the end of the world and its not like you can't play the game anymore. Someone mentioned before carrier micro. I wouldn't say "harder" is the right term to use, but more rewarding.
As for making the entire game harder by putting in silly oldschool mechanics like broodwar AI movement and workers being unable to automine is silly. Make the game better by progressing, not regressing.
On January 24 2012 04:23 SupLilSon wrote: MVP/NesTea/etc. These guys trained in professional BW settings for years, solidifying their RTS experience and skills. In less than 1 year, people who have never played RTS games before can take games off these guys due to the lack of mechanical skill required to play Protoss and Zerg. I'm sorry but MVP and MMA should never lose a game to someone like TiTaN or BlinG or NaniWa. You would never see a Chess grandmaster lose to an amatuer. Theres a pretty clear reason why we've been able to see a number of Protoss and Zerg foreigner champions compete with Koreans but not a single foreigner Terran has ever come close. SC2 Terran at least requires some degree of mechanical skill and mastering of techniques to remain potent at the pro level. Zerg and Protoss are almost all "macro" and 1a. I put macro in quotes because it is such a reduced and watered down version of SC1 macro that it's laughable.
This might sound like whining, but hey, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro that disagrees.
I see what you are saying about new players taking games off of the top players, but that should happen in this game as it is not nearly as "figured out" as BW. No one has seen every strategy yet. Each new GSL season, some player with a previously underused strategy/style does fairly well by exploiting weaknesses in the current metagame. Once the more experienced players play a couple games against them, their success slows down and eventually they stop winning games.
Top Terran players like MMA and MVP are more likely to lose to a well executed P or Z build than to another T build because they don't know the ins and outs of the opponent's race as well as they know their own. Going after the #1 Terran player with the same forces/builds he already knows like the back of his hand is very difficult. Coming at him from a completely foreign (zing!) perspective makes it easier to get in cheap shots and throw them off their game. Every player should lose games, even the top players, and a lot of these are losses because of build orders/strategies as much as from mistakes and mis-clicks. The latter will happen less with MMA and MVP, but it still happens.
On topic: I think the game has the right amount of difficulty as it stands. It reminds me of the Capcom fighting games, with sort of an inverted bell curve of ability. When you first pick up the game, you can quickly find simple strats that are relatively easy to execute (1a armies are comparable to button mashing in fighters. Sometimes you just get lucky.) As you start to learn more about the game and metagame, you slightly alter your build into something more complex, losing some of your concentration because it is now split on managing 3 bases and playing for the long haul, not just 1 base-all-in. I know when I did this in ladder, I started losing a lot more than when I was just 7 RR or 6 Pool. But, eventually being able to execute more and more complex strategies while holding off the easier to execute attacks from my opponent helped me to climb back up on the bell curve.
At one end you have guys that 6 pooled into Masters. On the other you have guys like MMA/MVP. At some point, the 6-pooler will get lucky and pull off his more easily executed strategy against a much better player and take the better player by surprise. I see nothing wrong with this as it keeps all players 'honest' and makes for better tournaments because some unknown underdog can take at least a couple games off of the Best of the Best. Does this mean the game is "easy"? No. Just like in Chess, some guy with a limited knowledge can be doing things that make so little sense to the Chess Master, confusing them and possibly causing them to make silly mistakes. It's the human element of competitive games, and it's what makes it entertaining to watch for a lot of people.
I'd agree with you if MMA and MVP were losing to brilliantly thought out strategies. But thats not the case. They lose to 6 gate pushes because it's absurd. They lose to Protoss deathball because at a certain point no amount of micro or multitasking can overcome that. The game is not horribly imbalanced but there exist a glaring imbalance between effort put in to win as Terran and effort put in to win as the other 2 races (especially protoss). Even Artosis has said that he switched to Protoss because it allowed him to maintain a high playing level while putting considerably less time into practicing and upkeeping his mechanics.
I think the game is at the right level right now to allow for competetive depth while still staying reasonably simple to appeal to the mainstream. If the goal was purely competition, I would definitely say that increasing the skill requirements would be desirable, but keeping the game accessible for players who are new or simply don't have the time to invest in the game practice-wise is equally important to maintaining a healthy community and industry. So on that level, I don't believe that the game needs to get any harder.
I don't think the macro mechanics need to be as hard as BW, adding chrono-boost/inject etc was great but they should remove auto-mining or something to make macro harder and set better players apart from worse even more.
As for micro and units I think a lot of improvements can be made. Too many units are just plain boring with very little potential for micro. Blizzard should really think about each unit and what potential the unit has both for beginners and pros when it comes to control, not how cool the lasers are... Abilities like concussive shield/fungal/force-field are just retarded too. We want people to micro, not prevent them from doing so.
On January 24 2012 04:23 SupLilSon wrote: MVP/NesTea/etc. These guys trained in professional BW settings for years, solidifying their RTS experience and skills. In less than 1 year, people who have never played RTS games before can take games off these guys due to the lack of mechanical skill required to play Protoss and Zerg. I'm sorry but MVP and MMA should never lose a game to someone like TiTaN or BlinG or NaniWa. You would never see a Chess grandmaster lose to an amatuer. Theres a pretty clear reason why we've been able to see a number of Protoss and Zerg foreigner champions compete with Koreans but not a single foreigner Terran has ever come close. SC2 Terran at least requires some degree of mechanical skill and mastering of techniques to remain potent at the pro level. Zerg and Protoss are almost all "macro" and 1a. I put macro in quotes because it is such a reduced and watered down version of SC1 macro that it's laughable.
This might sound like whining, but hey, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro that disagrees.
I see what you are saying about new players taking games off of the top players, but that should happen in this game as it is not nearly as "figured out" as BW. No one has seen every strategy yet. Each new GSL season, some player with a previously underused strategy/style does fairly well by exploiting weaknesses in the current metagame. Once the more experienced players play a couple games against them, their success slows down and eventually they stop winning games.
Top Terran players like MMA and MVP are more likely to lose to a well executed P or Z build than to another T build because they don't know the ins and outs of the opponent's race as well as they know their own. Going after the #1 Terran player with the same forces/builds he already knows like the back of his hand is very difficult. Coming at him from a completely foreign (zing!) perspective makes it easier to get in cheap shots and throw them off their game. Every player should lose games, even the top players, and a lot of these are losses because of build orders/strategies as much as from mistakes and mis-clicks. The latter will happen less with MMA and MVP, but it still happens.
On topic: I think the game has the right amount of difficulty as it stands. It reminds me of the Capcom fighting games, with sort of an inverted bell curve of ability. When you first pick up the game, you can quickly find simple strats that are relatively easy to execute (1a armies are comparable to button mashing in fighters. Sometimes you just get lucky.) As you start to learn more about the game and metagame, you slightly alter your build into something more complex, losing some of your concentration because it is now split on managing 3 bases and playing for the long haul, not just 1 base-all-in. I know when I did this in ladder, I started losing a lot more than when I was just 7 RR or 6 Pool. But, eventually being able to execute more and more complex strategies while holding off the easier to execute attacks from my opponent helped me to climb back up on the bell curve.
At one end you have guys that 6 pooled into Masters. On the other you have guys like MMA/MVP. At some point, the 6-pooler will get lucky and pull off his more easily executed strategy against a much better player and take the better player by surprise. I see nothing wrong with this as it keeps all players 'honest' and makes for better tournaments because some unknown underdog can take at least a couple games off of the Best of the Best. Does this mean the game is "easy"? No. Just like in Chess, some guy with a limited knowledge can be doing things that make so little sense to the Chess Master, confusing them and possibly causing them to make silly mistakes. It's the human element of competitive games, and it's what makes it entertaining to watch for a lot of people.
I'd agree with you if MMA and MVP were losing to brilliantly thought out strategies. But thats not the case. They lose to 6 gate pushes because it's absurd. They lose to Protoss deathball because at a certain point no amount of micro or multitasking can overcome that. The game is not horribly imbalanced but there exist a glaring imbalance between effort put in to win as Terran and effort put in to win as the other 2 races (especially protoss). Even Artosis has said that he switched to Protoss because it allowed him to maintain a high playing level while putting considerably less time into practicing and upkeeping his mechanics.
Artosis said he thought protoss would let him do that, but he later realized it didn't (and it kind of shows at his current skill, doesn't it?). Don't quote-mine please.
Actually what needs to be done is to nerf/remove all macro mechanics.
Part of the reason this game is such a mess right now is because stuff is designed the overwhelming strength of the mechanics. Without them, you'd have a more balanced and evenly paced game, instead of being able to sprint ahead with any BO disadvantage.
In BW, good play and drawing the game out was an extremely viable way to come back from being behind 1-2m from a BO disadvantage. In SC2, there is no recovery.
On January 24 2012 05:54 Falling wrote: I don't really see why this needs to be mutually exclusive. The sorts of things I would like added would keep the skill the same for bronzies, but allow for greater levels of skill for pro's. For instance- muta micro, wraith micro, vulture micro. The mechanics to do those sorts of micro tricks while macroing at the same time is insane. But those same units can be 1a just the same (or move command with the mouse if you don't even know about attack move.) They just weren't nearly as effective when in the hands of the pro's. But mutalisks are pretty straightforward. Grab 12, move them forward to attack, grab the next 12, rinse repeat. But to take away the rapid reflex, muta control that could dart into a base to pick up stray units at will- why would we ever take that away when nothing better replaces it?
Carrier micro too- noobs would use them just the same as 1a, but pro's could attack retreat and hover across cliffs. Reavers were actually easy to use- they just weren't very effective without micro. But you could send them on their poky way or leave them for defence.
Ok, so maybe getting rid of smart casting would make things harder for noobs. But honestly, real newbs don't really use those sorts of units anyways. And if they did, I'm sure they would be just as happy to fire off one really awesome spell that killed stuff than to spam 't' with little discernible difference to the marauders, tanks or roaches.
Or take Dark Swarm- zerg was easy to use as newb. Make banks of hatcheries so you can select 12 larvae at a time and build 200 zerglings and send them at a base. True newbs with their 12-40 apm aren't going to use Dark Swarm anyways. But it's a tool that can be used by even D- or E players going on iCCup.
And that's why I don't really see it as mutually exclusive. Newbs will gravitate to the easier to use units and experiment with the cool ones. (I taught one guy to macro, but then he just made masses of goliaths so that he could have 6 control groups to 1a2a3a4a5a6a across the map. He eventually learned that straight goliaths is a bad strategy.) But you don't take away tools for the pro's to use.
And if we're talking about problems of making the game harder- Blizzard kinda already did that with the arbitrary macro mechanics. Consider, if Protoss didn't have chronoboost, how would it be balanced? Why the build times would be sped up. What about inject larvae? Larvae would spawn faster or Zerg units would become tougher. They've pulled out some pretty straight forward stuff to make the game harder and rebalanced the timings and cost based on that. When really it could have been buried in adjusting the numbers a bit and forget about the macro mechanics altogether.
agreed. true noobs don't really care about ease of use, they have larger mental hurdles. Getting over the mental hurdle of playing fast is huge . Most people don't even use hotkeys, they don't care at all about ease of use. The biggest thing a new player is gonna want is just multiple unit selection, but alot of other things, even auto mine, most people won't even notice. So many people don't even know about buildings rally. Most bad players don't even notice shit like smart casting, and all the subtle shit, they just want to build shit.
On January 24 2012 04:23 SupLilSon wrote: MVP/NesTea/etc. These guys trained in professional BW settings for years, solidifying their RTS experience and skills. In less than 1 year, people who have never played RTS games before can take games off these guys due to the lack of mechanical skill required to play Protoss and Zerg. I'm sorry but MVP and MMA should never lose a game to someone like TiTaN or BlinG or NaniWa. You would never see a Chess grandmaster lose to an amatuer. Theres a pretty clear reason why we've been able to see a number of Protoss and Zerg foreigner champions compete with Koreans but not a single foreigner Terran has ever come close. SC2 Terran at least requires some degree of mechanical skill and mastering of techniques to remain potent at the pro level. Zerg and Protoss are almost all "macro" and 1a. I put macro in quotes because it is such a reduced and watered down version of SC1 macro that it's laughable.
This might sound like whining, but hey, you'd be hard pressed to find a pro that disagrees.
I see what you are saying about new players taking games off of the top players, but that should happen in this game as it is not nearly as "figured out" as BW. No one has seen every strategy yet. Each new GSL season, some player with a previously underused strategy/style does fairly well by exploiting weaknesses in the current metagame. Once the more experienced players play a couple games against them, their success slows down and eventually they stop winning games.
Top Terran players like MMA and MVP are more likely to lose to a well executed P or Z build than to another T build because they don't know the ins and outs of the opponent's race as well as they know their own. Going after the #1 Terran player with the same forces/builds he already knows like the back of his hand is very difficult. Coming at him from a completely foreign (zing!) perspective makes it easier to get in cheap shots and throw them off their game. Every player should lose games, even the top players, and a lot of these are losses because of build orders/strategies as much as from mistakes and mis-clicks. The latter will happen less with MMA and MVP, but it still happens.
On topic: I think the game has the right amount of difficulty as it stands. It reminds me of the Capcom fighting games, with sort of an inverted bell curve of ability. When you first pick up the game, you can quickly find simple strats that are relatively easy to execute (1a armies are comparable to button mashing in fighters. Sometimes you just get lucky.) As you start to learn more about the game and metagame, you slightly alter your build into something more complex, losing some of your concentration because it is now split on managing 3 bases and playing for the long haul, not just 1 base-all-in. I know when I did this in ladder, I started losing a lot more than when I was just 7 RR or 6 Pool. But, eventually being able to execute more and more complex strategies while holding off the easier to execute attacks from my opponent helped me to climb back up on the bell curve.
At one end you have guys that 6 pooled into Masters. On the other you have guys like MMA/MVP. At some point, the 6-pooler will get lucky and pull off his more easily executed strategy against a much better player and take the better player by surprise. I see nothing wrong with this as it keeps all players 'honest' and makes for better tournaments because some unknown underdog can take at least a couple games off of the Best of the Best. Does this mean the game is "easy"? No. Just like in Chess, some guy with a limited knowledge can be doing things that make so little sense to the Chess Master, confusing them and possibly causing them to make silly mistakes. It's the human element of competitive games, and it's what makes it entertaining to watch for a lot of people.
I'd agree with you if MMA and MVP were losing to brilliantly thought out strategies. But thats not the case. They lose to 6 gate pushes because it's absurd. They lose to Protoss deathball because at a certain point no amount of micro or multitasking can overcome that. The game is not horribly imbalanced but there exist a glaring imbalance between effort put in to win as Terran and effort put in to win as the other 2 races (especially protoss). Even Artosis has said that he switched to Protoss because it allowed him to maintain a high playing level while putting considerably less time into practicing and upkeeping his mechanics.
Artosis said he thought protoss would let him do that, but he later realized it didn't (and it kind of shows at his current skill, doesn't it?). Don't quote-mine please.
I didn't quote mine... that is something he said, exactly in that context.
Raise the skill ceiling but not the skill required to play the game. New micro mechanics and anti-"ball vs ball" units like lurkers and siege tanks that can zone control would be SOOOOOO nice.
I don't think Blizzard understands what micro really is because they keep adding spell-casters instead of new unit relations that are awesome like marines vs banelings. Spell-casters are nice but when they start to LIMIT micro like fungal growth and instant EMP you kind of feel like something is wrong...
Units like collosus is a no no, units like marines and banelings are yes yes!
On January 24 2012 00:18 Whitewing wrote: When players are playing perfectly you can complain about skill caps being too low and the game being too easy. For a so called 'easy' game, people sure make a lot of mistakes.
I see firebathero and Flash getting supply block in the middle phase of the game . Bw must be easy because they do make a lot of mistakes too.
That was exactly my point -_-. Neither game is 'easy', they're just 'different'.
no sc2 is easy compared to BW
its a simple fact of math. macro in sc2 is easier so is micro. strats the same
so we have a 2-0 in favor of BW
Are you that dense?
Easier =/= easy. Knocking down the CN tower with one punch is easier than breaking the entire planet in half with one punch, that doesn't mean it's easy.
And it's not clear that micro is easier in SC2 than it is in Brood War. Simpler? Yes. It is much simpler, unit control isn't nearly as complex. But complexity and difficulty are not the same thing, units die much faster in SC2 and move faster as well, which means controlling them properly requires more speed and accuracy, as well as much more caution since the slightest mistake can mean a dead army. In Brood War, units died a bit slower and didn't move nearly as fast on the whole, so controlling them was more a question of know-how than a question of raw speed and accuracy. That said, due to the slower movement speed and dying rate in BW, you were able to properly control more units at once.
Why would it require MORE speed and accuracy? There's only a max amount of speed someone could even feasibly put into the game. Besides that i think you are missing the point. Look at the new units. Collossus. Reaver. Hrm can't quite put my finger on the difference..
It requires more speed and more accuracy with actions to control a faster unit than a slow one. There's a very simple way to show this: turn your game speed down and watch what happens.
Slow units require less accuracy to control, because if you click wrong the first few times, it still hasn't completed the action so you can fix it. It also requires more accuracy to control units that die fast, because one misclick and you could lose it in a hurry without time to fix the mistake, while a slow unit gives you more time, and since it dies slower, even if it gets hit you might be able to pull it back.
Micro itself was easier in brood war, but it was more complicated and required significantly more understanding and knowledge of the game to do so. An obvious example is that, despite several a level brood war pros transferring over like Forgg, they very obviously aren't executing very well on a lot of micro tricks that would help a ton. ThorZaiN's insane marine split against siege tanks is a fantastic example of some micro that most pros haven't been doing and aren't doing well now, despite many of them having had brood war micro practice.
But you can't look at these things in a vacuum. While micro may have been easier, multi-tasking everything was more difficult, since you had to micro, macro (which I agree was much harder than it is now), and do everything else at the same time to be really good.
On January 24 2012 06:28 XiGua wrote: Raise the skill ceiling but not the skill required to play the game. New micro mechanics and anti-"ball vs ball" units like lurkers and siege tanks that can zone control would be SOOOOOO nice.
I don't think Blizzard understands what micro really is because they keep adding spell-casters instead of new unit relations that are awesome like marines vs banelings. Spell-casters are nice but when they start to LIMIT micro like fungal growth and instant EMP you kind of feel like something is wrong...
Units like collosus is a no no, units like marines and banelings are yes yes!
I think the relationship between banes and marines is also poor.
Lurkers may not be viable in SC2 for a number of reasons, but look at the original relationship: lurkers - require babysitting + micro, marines require babysitting and micro.
Lurkers are far more interesting than banelings ever were. Mind boggling how much Blizzard manages to fuck up.
On January 24 2012 06:28 XiGua wrote: Raise the skill ceiling but not the skill required to play the game. New micro mechanics and anti-"ball vs ball" units like lurkers and siege tanks that can zone control would be SOOOOOO nice.
I don't think Blizzard understands what micro really is because they keep adding spell-casters instead of new unit relations that are awesome like marines vs banelings. Spell-casters are nice but when they start to LIMIT micro like fungal growth and instant EMP you kind of feel like something is wrong...
Units like collosus is a no no, units like marines and banelings are yes yes!
I think the relationship between banes and marines is also poor.
Lurkers may not be viable in SC2 for a number of reasons, but look at the original relationship: lurkers - require babysitting + micro, marines require babysitting and micro.
Lurkers are far more interesting than banelings ever were. Mind boggling how much Blizzard manages to fuck up.
Removing auto-mining would be silly. I don't understand why someone would want to play a game where you have to drag each retarded worker to the mineral line. I didn't like it back in 1998 and I certainly don't expect it now in 2012. But what I do agree on is that unit design needs to be changed. At the moment a Hellion is nearly as effective at the hands of a random bronze league player as a vulture micro'd by fantasy. Just doesn't seem right to me.
OP where do you pull your numbers from? I bet you made them out of thin air.
I highly doubt that only 5% of the SC2 player base were BW fans as well. BW sold millions of copies and was pirated countless million times more. Tracking concrete sales data for SC2 is difficult, but I'd estimate it's sold about 6-7million copies to date. This may be slightly more than the retail sales for BW, however consider the following: A. The market is much larger today than it was 10 years ago B. People purchase duplicate copies of SC2 for multi-region access, and C. BW was pirated on a massive scale, whilst pirating SC2 is quite difficult. It's clear that SC2 hasn't really brought in a higher net total of players at all...definitely nothing on the scale to suggest your 95%/5% figures are accurate.
yes. game needs to be more difficult. tired of the randomness or luck involved. In sc2 I look at the pros and I don't think too much of their play since it is not hard to replicate their play. But in BW it is impossible for me to replicate their play. Thus, when I watch SC2 I go "meh". There is no wow factor (sometimes there is like MMA, jjaki, leenock, and mvp). In bw I am always in awe and it is a joy to watch their gosu skills.
On January 24 2012 05:54 Falling wrote: I don't really see why this needs to be mutually exclusive. The sorts of things I would like added would keep the skill the same for bronzies, but allow for greater levels of skill for pro's. For instance- muta micro, wraith micro, vulture micro. The mechanics to do those sorts of micro tricks while macroing at the same time is insane. But those same units can be 1a just the same (or move command with the mouse if you don't even know about attack move.) They just weren't nearly as effective when in the hands of the pro's. But mutalisks are pretty straightforward. Grab 12, move them forward to attack, grab the next 12, rinse repeat. But to take away the rapid reflex, muta control that could dart into a base to pick up stray units at will- why would we ever take that away when nothing better replaces it?
Carrier micro too- noobs would use them just the same as 1a, but pro's could attack retreat and hover across cliffs. Reavers were actually easy to use- they just weren't very effective without micro. But you could send them on their poky way or leave them for defence.
Ok, so maybe getting rid of smart casting would make things harder for noobs. But honestly, real newbs don't really use those sorts of units anyways. And if they did, I'm sure they would be just as happy to fire off one really awesome spell that killed stuff than to spam 't' with little discernible difference to the marauders, tanks or roaches.
Or take Dark Swarm- zerg was easy to use as newb. Make banks of hatcheries so you can select 12 larvae at a time and build 200 zerglings and send them at a base. True newbs with their 12-40 apm aren't going to use Dark Swarm anyways. But it's a tool that can be used by even D- or E players going on iCCup.
And that's why I don't really see it as mutually exclusive. Newbs will gravitate to the easier to use units and experiment with the cool ones. (I taught one guy to macro, but then he just made masses of goliaths so that he could have 6 control groups to 1a2a3a4a5a6a across the map. He eventually learned that straight goliaths is a bad strategy.) But you don't take away tools for the pro's to use.
And if we're talking about problems of making the game harder- Blizzard kinda already did that with the arbitrary macro mechanics. Consider, if Protoss didn't have chronoboost, how would it be balanced? Why the build times would be sped up. What about inject larvae? Larvae would spawn faster or Zerg units would become tougher. They've pulled out some pretty straight forward stuff to make the game harder and rebalanced the timings and cost based on that. When really it could have been buried in adjusting the numbers a bit and forget about the macro mechanics altogether.
agreed. true noobs don't really care about ease of use, they have larger mental hurdles. Getting over the mental hurdle of playing fast is huge . Most people don't even use hotkeys, they don't care at all about ease of use. The biggest thing a new player is gonna want is just multiple unit selection, but alot of other things, even auto mine, most people won't even notice. So many people don't even know about buildings rally. Most bad players don't even notice shit like smart casting, and all the subtle shit, they just want to build shit.
Thats just wrong u talk about noobs like they are stupid little children. And u talk like there would only be total noobs and pros. What you wrote might be true for a guy who never played rts before, buys the game and quits after 1 week. Actually iam pretty sure the majority of players know and use all the units and would probably quit if u made the mechanics even harder.
game should slowly become more difficult ( removing clumsy units like the thor is a good start ). but so many people write that it s "stupid easy" and totally should become harder... are u all GM's? ..think people should look a bit more on the improving side if they complain so much about this game being so easy.
On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote: The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
I like it hard.
I got lost in this post and couldn't keep reading... LOL blaze <3
On January 24 2012 06:26 architecture wrote: Actually what needs to be done is to nerf/remove all macro mechanics.
Part of the reason this game is such a mess right now is because stuff is designed the overwhelming strength of the mechanics. Without them, you'd have a more balanced and evenly paced game, instead of being able to sprint ahead with any BO disadvantage.
In BW, good play and drawing the game out was an extremely viable way to come back from being behind 1-2m from a BO disadvantage. In SC2, there is no recovery.
I completely agree with this and think it needs to be discussed more. Please keep in mind that I love the mechanics and they're really fun for me as an overachieving bronze player who's been on TL for 3 years.
Er, OP with open-ended title has 100+ replies that have nothing to do with actual topic.
And you kind of answered your own question no? The conflict at hand, in layman's terms, is:
Is the commercially successful yet strategically shallow SC2 better or worse than the minority-driven, mechanically challenging BW whose famed skill ceiling was basically an accident due to technological limitations between then and now.
The fact is, SC2 has the right framework for a game that can cater to the public AND the pros. But as it stands it is just too shallow of a game with a metagame that has been shaken too many times with patches that cater SPECIFICALLY TO LOWER LEAGUE PLAYERS (STOP SWINGING THE FKIN NERF BAT JESUS). HotS coming out mixes this freakshow of a fruitsalad we call SC2 even more chaotically.
SC2 is the future. It has the legs to run far. None of that 12unitselect/single building select bullshit. That's not real strategy. It wasn't even intended! Those mechanics do have some nostalgic/semantic value in separating the big dogs from the monsters, but I think it's the wrong place to look. To maintain commercial success with casual gamers AND their core fanbase, they need to look at their flawed unit concepts(LOLBANSHEES)/superfluous macro mechanics(LOLMULES)/unitpathing,bunching(LOLDEATHBALLS)/map design(LOLMETALOPOLISINMAPPOOLSINCESEASON1)/ and work more on each of the 3 unit dynamics with one thing in mind: WARPGATES. Goddamn if I had ever seen a promising game mechanic bungled so terribly.
Pick up your shit Blizzard. The cracks are forming and only getting larger. I want to have faith in you, but you are making it really difficult.
The game will progressively get harder on its own, as people learn its intricacies and depth more. Keep it the same level, for consistency and ease of use. Thinking back to BW, before 04 Terrans were floating gas, before BoxeR terran was considered underpowered (00)... In much the same way, Sc2 will continue to evolve, expand, and thus, get more difficult. We've barely scratched the surface here.
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.
The BW pros are playing a game where every build is figured out, they've had enough time to practice the game to be near the absolute skillcap, they barely have any holes in their play.
The SC2 pros are playing a game where not nearly every build nor playstyle has been figured out, they haven't had enough time with the game to actually reach anywhere near the skillcap nor tighten up every hole in their gameplay. You constantly see new cheese builds coming from the top, new macro openings and the such which can make even top players lose due to them not knowing the existence of that build.
Once everything like that is figured out in SC2 and the top pros have spent enough time mastering Marine Macro, triple pronged drops and not losing to something as silly as a ling runby while their depot isn't up then you'll see those top players winning consistently vs lesser opponents.
The fact that people expect the very top of the SC2 players to win every single game surprises me, this game is still relatively new and there's alot of things that can still catch the top players off-guard, this isn't because of bad game-design, it's because shit needs to get figured out and pros needs to get better.
Please don't tell me MVP, NesTea and MC have reached the skillcap of SC2. They're damn good but I still see bad marine splitting from MVP time to time (and by bad I mean not perfect as it should be at that lvl). I still see NesTea making bad decisions and not microing perfectly (almost every pro sacrifices their infestors mindlessly every time they try to fungal for example) and I still see MC simply not playing at his best from time to time.
The fact that people point fingers at the GAME SC2 rather than it's players is funny though...
Does this game need to get harder? No, not really. The level it is right now is fine imo, give it time and we'll see how it plays out in a year.
On January 24 2012 06:26 architecture wrote: Actually what needs to be done is to nerf/remove all macro mechanics.
Part of the reason this game is such a mess right now is because stuff is designed the overwhelming strength of the mechanics. Without them, you'd have a more balanced and evenly paced game, instead of being able to sprint ahead with any BO disadvantage.
In BW, good play and drawing the game out was an extremely viable way to come back from being behind 1-2m from a BO disadvantage. In SC2, there is no recovery.
Wrong way to fix. Better to make scouting less of an investment to reduce game deciding build order casino.
On January 24 2012 06:26 architecture wrote: Actually what needs to be done is to nerf/remove all macro mechanics.
Part of the reason this game is such a mess right now is because stuff is designed the overwhelming strength of the mechanics. Without them, you'd have a more balanced and evenly paced game, instead of being able to sprint ahead with any BO disadvantage.
In BW, good play and drawing the game out was an extremely viable way to come back from being behind 1-2m from a BO disadvantage. In SC2, there is no recovery.
Wrong way to fix. Better to make scouting less of an investment to reduce game deciding build order casino.
build order casino...
omg can't stop laughing hahaha that souns so fun for some reason
I wonder, if you put two pro-gamers against each other, one playing normally, and one who never selects more than x to y units together (i.e. nevers 1a entire army), who would come out on top. Forcing an artificial limitation upon a player may push people to discover new possibilities and raise the skill ceiling; only those who actually take the time to do this would get benefits while the casuals can 1a to their heart's content.
I could very well be wrong here, but it would be interesting to see some gamers play with this style; perhaps a unit-selection limitation map mod could help, SC2BW style. 12 might be a little too low, and should only apply to units, not buildings...
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.
On January 23 2012 21:33 Capped wrote: Seriously, Brood war mechanics are old and outdated, they are harder because they are shit by comparison and design.
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
If you never played BW then obv you won't understand it.
The main problem is that newbie-friendly (aka skilless) games like LoL have huge sales, and i'm sure blizzard will check that, besides their loyal fan base.
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.
It's still too low.
IMNesTea, IMMVP and all the other great players mess up all the time. What's your reasoning behind your opinion?
Well, I've played both BW and SC2 extensively. BW is tons harder to play than SC2, largely to do with the far less advanced UI where you have to do a lot more things manually.
As for SC2, I think what it needs is a higher skill ceiling and for outcomes to be further more reliant on skill rather than "build order casino" (credit to ChoboDane for saying this ) and other "dumb" ways to win/lose.
On January 24 2012 05:54 Falling wrote: I don't really see why this needs to be mutually exclusive. The sorts of things I would like added would keep the skill the same for bronzies, but allow for greater levels of skill for pro's. For instance- muta micro, wraith micro, vulture micro. The mechanics to do those sorts of micro tricks while macroing at the same time is insane. But those same units can be 1a just the same (or move command with the mouse if you don't even know about attack move.) They just weren't nearly as effective when in the hands of the pro's. But mutalisks are pretty straightforward. Grab 12, move them forward to attack, grab the next 12, rinse repeat. But to take away the rapid reflex, muta control that could dart into a base to pick up stray units at will- why would we ever take that away when nothing better replaces it?
Carrier micro too- noobs would use them just the same as 1a, but pro's could attack retreat and hover across cliffs. Reavers were actually easy to use- they just weren't very effective without micro. But you could send them on their poky way or leave them for defence.
Ok, so maybe getting rid of smart casting would make things harder for noobs. But honestly, real newbs don't really use those sorts of units anyways. And if they did, I'm sure they would be just as happy to fire off one really awesome spell that killed stuff than to spam 't' with little discernible difference to the marauders, tanks or roaches.
Or take Dark Swarm- zerg was easy to use as newb. Make banks of hatcheries so you can select 12 larvae at a time and build 200 zerglings and send them at a base. True newbs with their 12-40 apm aren't going to use Dark Swarm anyways. But it's a tool that can be used by even D- or E players going on iCCup.
And that's why I don't really see it as mutually exclusive. Newbs will gravitate to the easier to use units and experiment with the cool ones. (I taught one guy to macro, but then he just made masses of goliaths so that he could have 6 control groups to 1a2a3a4a5a6a across the map. He eventually learned that straight goliaths is a bad strategy.) But you don't take away tools for the pro's to use.
And if we're talking about problems of making the game harder- Blizzard kinda already did that with the arbitrary macro mechanics. Consider, if Protoss didn't have chronoboost, how would it be balanced? Why the build times would be sped up. What about inject larvae? Larvae would spawn faster or Zerg units would become tougher. They've pulled out some pretty straight forward stuff to make the game harder and rebalanced the timings and cost based on that. When really it could have been buried in adjusting the numbers a bit and forget about the macro mechanics altogether.
agreed. true noobs don't really care about ease of use, they have larger mental hurdles. Getting over the mental hurdle of playing fast is huge . Most people don't even use hotkeys, they don't care at all about ease of use. The biggest thing a new player is gonna want is just multiple unit selection, but alot of other things, even auto mine, most people won't even notice. So many people don't even know about buildings rally. Most bad players don't even notice shit like smart casting, and all the subtle shit, they just want to build shit.
Thats just wrong u talk about noobs like they are stupid little children. And u talk like there would only be total noobs and pros. What you wrote might be true for a guy who never played rts before, buys the game and quits after 1 week. Actually iam pretty sure the majority of players know and use all the units and would probably quit if u made the mechanics even harder.
wait.... you mean like most that purchased the game? I'm talking like "mass appeal" has little to do with smart casting and automining. Most players find it as minor annoyance. i know gold players that are still using only their mouse. If you love starcraft, your gonna like it regardless of the ability to spam storms or emps or fungals. The people in plat to diamond would still love to play even without smart casting, i don't think smart casting and automine are game breakers for people like that, or would inhibit people from wanting to get to that level. and most casuals play team games anyway
I say no. I didn't play BW but I don't think it matters. There's a lot of BW pros out there that think they're better than they actually are, but in reality all of the best players have consistent results. I feel like people who are asking for a more difficult game are just making excuses for their current skill. I also feel like BW skill is completely irrelevant given the fact that the game was nowhere near as popular as SC2 is and people good at BW (foreign scene) because there wasn't as much competition.
The popularity of a game relies on that theory of easy to learn hard to master. I feel like SC2 right now is in a good balance and I also feel like the skill cap is really high and that there's still a great deal of evolution yet to come for the pros.
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.
I don't think it needs to be harder, but it definitely could be tweaked so that there is more potential for player skill to influence games. I'm thinking of stuff like marine split or multi-tasking with drops.
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.
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
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.
Sorry to break it to you but all of those guys aren't that great. I don't know if Polt and Top lost any best or 3+ series or anything to these guys but if they did then they aren't at that level in SC2 yet where they truly dominate lesser players.
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.
Sorry to break it to you but all of those guys aren't that great. I don't know if Polt and Top lost any best or 3+ series or anything to these guys but if they did then they aren't at that level in SC2 yet where they truly dominate lesser players.
And yet one has won a championship and one made it to the finals. They probably should dominate those guys who aren`t anywhere near that level.
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?
I'll say what's already been said : Blizzard needs to improve the scouting, to reduce the gambling part of the game and fix some match up.
Its not blizzard who needs to improve scouting, its the players lol Terran and zerg have no excuse for not knowing what there opponent is doing during the first 6-7 minutes. Protoss has reason to complain a bit i think, since they cant scan or fly ovies
Annyway: as sugestion to make scouting a bit more easy, maybe all units should be able to see 2-3 range further then they are able to now It is not easy to scout the whole map and bases in reasonable time with so little vision.
On January 24 2012 06:07 decaf wrote: Looking at the finals rom kiev where mma dominated dimaga on terminus RE I think the game needs to be harder. One of the casters asked what can you possibly do to stop MMA and I sincerely wondered the same: His macro never slipped, his decision making was very good, and his micro is obviously top notch. There's not much room left for improvement, I think people will soon hit the ceiling in sc2.
As a mid masters player I can watch pro replays and say "OK, I can physically macro that well for the first 8 minutes of the game, while controlling lings outside his base and sending overlords to scout." I can't take a game off mvp, and objectively when comparing myself to professional players, i'm bad. But in bw there was no such thing as macroing like flash or JD. It just wasn't possible.
IMO you give sc2 maybe a year or two after all the expansions (hots and lotv) are out, and it people will pretty much hit the cap of "this is how well you can play the game". Part of my enjoyment when watching someone play bw these days is thinking "This guy is playing the race literally the best it can possibly be played after 12+ years of exploration and development." It took people like a year and a half to get decent at sc2.
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.
I would like the pathing engine to attempt to unclump stuff. Increase area of all AoE's by 25% and spread everything out by 25%, something like that. Gives a higher reward for people to manually spread stuff out, and make armies look bigger. It also helps alleviate the fact that a marine ball gets exponentially better against melee units. A protoss deathball occupies about 25% of my screen right now at max supply. I want that protoss deathball to take up half a screen. I don't think interface-wise you can do much. MBS, automine, 255 unit limit are all ingrained. Perhaps some ability to customize UI would be nice. Hiding certain elements and expanding others. For example, the ability to change minimap size, while hiding unit portraits and the command card. Also I would like to be able to customize alerts. I don't need to know that I just warped in 4 stalkers, I do want to know that my opponent launched a nuclear missile.
Mechanics-wise I want them to make the game harder, but not by making the game clunky. I want multitasking well to be rewarded well. A diamond player can shift queue 2 dropships, but if he drops both on top of a couple of zealots without microing, it's not going to do squat. IMO make certain units stronger in small groups, and nerf/remove the ones that are good in big groups. I want more 10 stalkers + a templar poking a Terran army while the rest of the army positions elsewhere. I don't want 5 colossus 6 sentries and 40 stalkers walking around looking for the zerg army. Ridiculous cost efficiency units also need to be toned down. Colossus inside a deathball without storm are an example of this. If you had damage charts, they would be dealing 50+% of the damage, but without that, the protoss army wouldn't kill anything. Another would be marines.
Finally, antimicro. Fungal & forcefield. Forcefield to an extent, can hurt as much as it helps, and the difference between good forcefields and bad ones is pretty apparent. However since both speed and accuracy are needed to do it properly, it's in a decent place, and opportunity cost is pretty high, because as everybody knows, sentries don't do damage, so having 10 supply worth of flashlights doesn't help you if you can't forcefield well. Fungal punishes people for clumping, but as a result of clumping, can KEEP punishing you for it. If a terran bio ball gets stormed, they can spread/dodge, and for the next one it's not going to do as much. Fungal hurts, and if properly timed, keeps hurting with no chance of recovery. This is the kind of antimicro I want removed. You should be punished one time for making a mistake, and be at a disadvantage.
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?
On January 24 2012 07:44 Lavi wrote: Doesn't have to be harder, i just want the game to promote and reward players with sick multitasking better
Couldn't agree more I think harder doesn't necessary mean better. Rewarding players for their micro and macro capabilities is good enough for me hope they raise the bar just a little higher :D
The concept of a "skill ceiling" (which is for all intents and purposes nonexistent in a game like SC2 or BW) and the volatility/fragility of gameplay (manifested by, e.g., the probability of large upsets) are completely separate issues. I have no idea why so many people continue to insist on conflating them.
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.
Fair enough. I personally never got into BW competitively, and really love the SC2 scene, so I don't fully understand the point of view of big BW fans.
From my point of view, I'm a mid-masters player but I could not dream of taking a game off of a pro, or even a semi-pro. I ran into gowser once on ladder and got utterly, utterly dominated. I tried going back and playing BW again for fun, but found the UI so frustatingly hard to control that I couldn't bare to play it. There is something really frustrating about being incapable of even moving a big army around the way I want to, let alone continue to macro. Sure, this makes it so BW pro games are that much more impressive to those who have played BW, but it doesn't make for a more popular game.
Basically, I think when the best players lose games to lesser players in SC2, it's almost always because the better player didn't play well. For example, when Mvp lost to adelscott in the Team Liquid tournament a while back, it just seemed like he was playing terribly (for w/e reason). He lost a reaper against probes, made poor decisions, got caught out of position, etc. I just think the best aren't that consistent yet (except for those we see consistently at the top of Code S).
Basically, I think when the best players lose games to lesser players in SC2, it's almost always because the better player didn't play well. For example, when Mvp lost to adelscott in the Team Liquid tournament a while back, it just seemed like he was playing terribly (for w/e reason). He lost a reaper against probes, made poor decisions, got caught out of position, etc. I just think the best aren't that consistent yet (except for those we see consistently at the top of Code S).
that`s a very good point i think i can agree with you on this now.
on a side note, based on what we seen (little) of Heart of the swarm it looks like the new units will add more variety and dynamics and some more micro which is good.
the information should be more perfect before difficulty is increased. randomness and lack of clarity in response to strategy is probably SC2's greatest weakness, not its ease. people do not play this game to its fullest potential yet by a long shot.
It's really hard to implement smart-cast in this game. You'd need to change spells like forcefields (that need to be mass-cast to be effective) a lot. It's one thing to select 5 high templars one by one and cast storm (Brood War), or have 6-7 sentries that all need to cast split second forcefields to get the timing right.
From someone who didn't play BW and switched from Age of Empires 2 to Starcraft 2, the things I would like to see changed are:
-remove smart-casting. -equal and harsher punishment for missing mules/larvae inject/crono. -bigger reward for great micro/control.
I believe these changes move the game in a direction where good players overcome bad players, slowly moving away from the "build order casino" mentioned before.
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.
Fair enough. I personally never got into BW competitively, and really love the SC2 scene, so I don't fully understand the point of view of big BW fans.
From my point of view, I'm a mid-masters player but I could not dream of taking a game off of a pro, or even a semi-pro. I ran into gowser once on ladder and got utterly, utterly dominated. I tried going back and playing BW again for fun, but found the UI so frustatingly hard to control that I couldn't bare to play it. There is something really frustrating about being incapable of even moving a big army around the way I want to, let alone continue to macro. Sure, this makes it so BW pro games are that much more impressive to those who have played BW, but it doesn't make for a more popular game.
Basically, I think when the best players lose games to lesser players in SC2, it's almost always because the better player didn't play well. For example, when Mvp lost to adelscott in the Team Liquid tournament a while back, it just seemed like he was playing terribly (for w/e reason). He lost a reaper against probes, made poor decisions, got caught out of position, etc. I just think the best aren't that consistent yet (except for those we see consistently at the top of Code S).
It's not like upsets never happened in Brood War either.
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.
Sorry to break it to you but all of those guys aren't that great. I don't know if Polt and Top lost any best or 3+ series or anything to these guys but if they did then they aren't at that level in SC2 yet where they truly dominate lesser players.
And yet one has won a championship and one made it to the finals. They probably should dominate those guys who aren`t anywhere near that level.
Not if they don't play good enough.
If you actually look at those series and say "hey, polt played super fucking good but lost to some bullshit" then sure, afaik though he actually lost in macro games. If he got cheesed then he should have scouted accordingly.
All of these examples are so bullshit, just because you're a better player you still have to actually PLAY better too.
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.
wtf can u not read?
thats not even relevant to our conversation. he said the game is easy because good macro makes you btr than 99% of other players. which is because good macro is so hard to perform that 99% of players have nowhere near top notch macro. all other game factors ignored. looks like your trying to get your post count up. you might as well go into the idra fanclub thread and post about your local weather. thats how relevant you are to this topic
Wow rage more because I disagree with you slightly?
Edit: If it's not clear what I said let me rephrase it. You guys seem to think good macro makes you better than 99% of the players, and I'm saying that's only true in the NA server. On harder servers, you have to have a lot more than just good macro, which is actually a good thing about the game.
Just because NA players are terrible doesn't mean the game's hard.
you cant judge how hard a game is from the skill of teh opponent. some easy games can have hard opponents. just because koreans are btr than any other race of ppl doesnt mean the game is easy. all the discussion is about is if the game is easy or hard to the point of needing adjusting. question: is macro so easy its taking away from the game?answer: maybe at the top lvl of play depending on what your watching it for. if u wanna see strat vs strat then no. it doesnt. if u like to see players pushed physically to there limits and beyond so we can spectate the most amazing matches ever then yes. if 95% of the player base cant even build there structures and units efficiently to even make strategy a determining factor of the game result. but to you directly. the game physically limits such a high percentage of players. which currently is ALL players. i cant see how u can say this game is easy without trolling. yes its harder than BW. but its not an easy game. not even close. i believe in your eyes, if the game doesnt say Brood War. its gonna be an easy game.
On January 24 2012 08:04 Grumbels wrote: It's really hard to implement smart-cast in this game. You'd need to change spells like forcefields (that need to be mass-cast to be effective) a lot. It's one thing to select 5 high templars one by one and cast storm (Brood War), or have 6-7 sentries that all need to cast split second forcefields to get the timing right.
I agree it would change balance quite a lot, especially protoss with forcefields.
I don't think sc2 should be "changed" to make it artificially hard, or more like brood war. Just let both games be themselves, and those who are interested in each game will watch/play.
On January 23 2012 23:51 Daimai wrote: I don't believe this game has a low skillcap, just that everybody is far from reaching it. I still see progamers, even in korea, do stupid fundamental mistakes they shouldn't do, engaging with chargelots behind stalkers etc.
The main concern with sc2 is that good players lose to randoms, I just say the metagame hasn't stabilized and there is no build (yet) which is decent/good against everything which causes coinflip losses. It's a metagame issue.
On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote: Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
Yeah, because putting EVERY probe you make on minerals and clicking on every building you have to make one unit is SO much more fun.
Automine and MBS is fun because it removes focus from stupid artificial over-the-top mechanical barriers to become decent and enjoy the game but to become good, there are still many strategial and tactical things you have to learn. Also mechanically, this game still isn't easy. Come back when you don't do any macro mistakes and I'll admit youre right.
On January 23 2012 23:50 EternaLLegacy wrote: I'll tell you what.
If this game is not easy, then why don't some of you guys in GM/top masters come play some BW for a while. Clearly it shouldn't be that hard, because the game is just as hard, right?
BW being hard doesn't suddenly make SC2 easy. Learn to logic bro.
If being good at BW makes you good at SC2, then we can say that BW is at least as hard as, or harder than SC2. Since this condition is true, the statement is true.
If being good at SC2 does not make you good at BW, then SC2 is not equally hard as BW. My challenge is these SC2 'top players' go play BW and see how terrible they do. If they can handle it, SC2 is as hard as BW. If they can't, SC2 is easier. It's quite simple really.
Very few SC2 players can jump into BW and start winning off the bat. Most BW players start off at low masters just by being BW players.
I don't think "difficulty" should be the focus. I think that could lead us down a bad path.
What I think we want is an increase in complexity, and a reduction in the influence of randomness over games. Greater "difficulty" may be a biproduct of this of course still, though.
On January 24 2012 08:18 Befree wrote: I don't think "difficulty" should be the focus. I think that could lead us down a bad path.
What I think we want is an increase in complexity, and a reduction in the influence of randomness over games. Greater "difficulty" may be a biproduct of this of course still, though.
One of the biggest confusions in game design is the difference between complexity and depth. If a game has depth, it allows for many different playstyles, strategies, and possibilities. A game with depth will always have something else to discover. Complexity, on the other hand, merely throws extra layers between the player and progress, and it doesn’t add anything.
As an example, chess is not particularly complex, but it has incredible depth. Anyone can pick up the basics of chess in an hour, but experts can practice for lifetimes and still find new strategies and avenues to explore.
A lot of people in game design use those concepts that way, so I think it's a good idea to use it on TL as well.
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 07:27 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.
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 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 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 08:04 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).
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 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.
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 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.
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 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?
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.
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).
Inject and chrono are entirely seperate things. Missing an inject is akin to letting WGs sit idle for the same period of time. Chrono is more minor, more comparable to something like creep spread (in the sense that they allow you to do something faster and missing chrono/creeping on CD doesn't end the game).
Not gonna touch mules because they are poorly implemented. Mules should be limited to one per mineral field (not patch) so players can't forget and drop 3 at once.
On January 24 2012 09:40 Falling wrote: @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.
hits the nail on the head.
From blizzards already early view on SC2 however i dont see this coming to fruition in SC2.
remember when fazing came about? it allowed void rays to damage two units at once through rapid right clicking which in turn allowed them to kill the two units around 30% faster then had you just attacked one unit then the other.
this bug added some depth to the void ray, protoss then had a unit that given 100% concentration could increase its dps by a large margin. however the downfall of using fazing was that you literally had to use all your concentration. you could not move other units you could not macro you couldnt do anything other then right click really fast.
however we had lots of whining and crying over its imbaness and blizzard instead of looking at a way to keep the bug to increase the void rays dynamics as a unit they just flat out removed it.
remember sock folding? a small almost beit mini game that could be used for players to gain focus and concentration at the start of the match as well as gain an extra 20 mineral bonus was removed because some people whined. why not just leave it in? Is it really that much worse to rally scvs to minerals then it is for players to just box workers?
what about the infestor underground casting bug? instead of flat out removing it they could have changed some sort of restriction on the bug, they could have adapted it and placed a restriction such as it would only work when 1 infestor was selected. but instead they completely removed it.
lots of small bugs such as this have already shown their face in sc2, but blizzard is insistent on removing them instead of incorporating them into the game, which is saddening and potentially an indicator of the lack of longevity of SC2.
The game does need to be harder. But it also needs to make sense. Right now the game is hard not because of mechanics, but because of how coin-flippy it is. Sometimes it is almost impossible to tell what your opponent is doing, especially in matchups involving Zerg, both because of Zerg's poor scouting and, from the opponents perspective, because of Zerg's larvae mechanic. Zerg basically doesn't have build orders past 30 food, and it is very hard to tell what their army composition is until it is on top of you. Furthermore, it is pretty hard to stop many all-ins even when you know they are coming - some people say this is because of the weakness of static defense, this may be true, I don't know. In general Terran has the easiest time stopping enemy all-ins (some Protoss timings excluded) because of scans, bunkers, and the fact that Terran must always be building units (they won't be caught off guard with 20 Drones morphing).
Another problem is that the game's difficulty is not spread around equally, even at the game's current "easy" level of difficulty. Terran units require way more micro and control than Zerg and Protoss units. Terran must also multitask in every matchup and has the most APM-intensive macro mechanics. At the Code S level this is usually fine, since the skill of the players is so high that it nullifies differences, but even then the vastly disproportionate difficulty of some situations is pretty blatant (TvP after the Protoss has both HTs and Colos is practically impossible even for Code S players). This leads to a lot of risky early game play and coin flipping.
I think Terran is currently the best-designed race, hence why TvT is such a great matchup to play and watch. TvT has units that can zone the map, it has lots of multitasking, and it has a big defenders advantage. Protoss is dumb because so many of their core units require zero micro and because chronoboost and Warpgates turns them in to a timing attack race (unless they want to turtle to 200/200 and use their fast upgrades and deathball units)... The result is weak early game units that are vulnerable to all-ins but become unstoppable once they reach a critical mass (which can happen very quickly during certain timings). Finally, I dislike Zerg's larvae inject mechanic. It was a cool thing for Blizzard to experiment with, but in the end I think that the ability to bank and build 50+ units at once is too radical to result in a game that is both balanced and well-designed. Economic and unit composition choices should be made over time, not decided by holding down a button at the last second. I think BW had the best possible take on Zerg - you can bank larve, but only 3 per Hatch. So if you want to go for a remax/tech switch strategy, you have to build up to it.
The game will eventually become harder. It's not coin-flippy, people suck at scouting. It's not based on luck with build order wins because there's no set build order yet. Every tournament there's a new metagame which has not been 100% set yet.
Mechanics are being figured out. In Broodwar you never had Mutalisk micro without the overlord trick, you never had patrol vulture and stuff at the very beginning where Starcraft 2 is right now.
I think this would be for the best, besides I'm tired of hearing BW players bashing SC2 because is such an easy game and such, I for example I'm a new SC2 player and I would really like to play at Masters level (that's my goal for the moment), I'm at a disadvantage against people who have been playing SC2 since beta, but I can live with that. But to me BW is not an option, because I don't think is really fair to start playing a game against people who have been playing for like 10 years.
6-12 months ago in the GSL most of the good players would get knocked out by randoms/cheesy scrubs in the group stage/round of 16 and by the late rounds we'd have 1/2 good players and a load of jobbers who somehow ended in the Round 4/8.
It used to be really annoying that we never got to see MC vs MVP or MC vs Nestea etc.. because they always lost to randoms and the game felt heavily luck based.
Nowadays top players just do not lose to anyone but other great players. The luck/random element is fast fading from the game as players get better and better and we're still nowhere near the skill gap with players like Flash yet to even try the game professionally.
It's way too early to write off the game as too easy and when players are still getting better and better every month. This season of GSL is way higher standard than the November season for example.
On January 24 2012 07:44 Lavi wrote: Doesn't have to be harder, i just want the game to promote and reward players with sick multitasking better
so MMA with his top-notch multi tasking, winning IEM Kiev, taking down MVP to win a GSL, taking down DRG to win the Blizzard Cup isn't "rewarding players with sick multitasking better"?
Not gonna touch mules because they are poorly implemented. Mules should be limited to one per mineral field (not patch) so players can't forget and drop 3 at once.
I still haven't heard any convincing reason ever why MULES are allowed to over-saturate mineral patches. Isn't it enough that Terans get six unkillable SCVs per orbital command for no supply? At least give them the same mining mechanics as SCVs to reduce the power of one-base plays.
The game does not need to be made harder, the luck factor of the game that allows for players to take games off other players that are far above them in skill needs to be significantly reduced. The luck factor is the only real problem of SC2.
Most of the things that made BW harder were just annoying. Not rallying workers to minerals, no control group buildings, small groups, etc. It was hard in a stupid way, you just had to micromanage mundane shit.
SC2 mechanics are easier, but they're easier for your opponent too. Both of you get to focus more on econ, micro, strategy, scouting, whatever, instead of spending your time sending scvs to mine. Fuck that shit.
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: TL DR The game being hard makes it better for the pros, but we owe the success of SC2 in the west compared to BW to its ease of use and accessibility
It's not proven that the SC2 success in the west comes from that. It's most likely just the fact it has been marketed on a larger scale as a game and eSport, and since we are way more superficial than asians we think graphic matters a lot. We can just make speculations but my eyes bleed whenever somebody take for granted that SC2 success is most likely given by the fact the game is easier than SCBW.
Where does that come from?
Considering the plastic culture of Korea, I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment....
I think the mechanical skillcap is too low. In BW it was a great feeling to have micro'd a huge battle and won, but in SCII it's not much more than 1a then split your units / kite. Often I find that it's better to just leave it at 1a because I'd probably get more out of larva injecting than microing anything.
sc2 is still the hardest RTS game of its generation, though. It's still a game for the minority. But as a spectator sport we are seeing more than we ever did with BW, partly because of blizzard's reputation, but also partly because it's a graphically relevant game that can be played on any decent computer made in the last 5 years.
Scouting is only one component. Many game decisions are necessarily made before it is possible to react to what the opponent is doing.
A1------A2-------A3 -----B1------B2--------
For instance, A must make decision A1 before B makes B1. Similarly, B1 needs to be made before A2, without knowing the result of A2.
The point is that you will always be making many reads AFTER the fact. There is nothing wrong with that if players can adapt and not die. Unfortunately, many of these are fatal in SC2, either in the short term or long term. The correct way to solve this is not to give more scouting, because scouting doesn't give you a crystal ball into the future. The correct way is to make it so that decisions aren't as fatal (caused by ridiculous macro mechanics).
On January 24 2012 10:58 Gak2 wrote: Welp, the people have spoken. Just waiting on you Blizzard.
The internet theorycrafters and BW nostalgics have said they want it hardened. I guarantee you that if you asked any bronze-diamond leaguer (98% of the player base) if they wanted to have to tell every worker made to mine the answer would be a resounding no.
Scouting is only one component. Many game decisions are necessarily made before it is possible to react to what the opponent is doing.
A1------A2-------A3 -----B1------B2--------
For instance, A must make decision A1 before B makes B1. Similarly, B1 needs to be made before A2, without knowing the result of A2.
The point is that you will always be making many reads AFTER the fact. There is nothing wrong with that if players can adapt and not die. Unfortunately, many of these are fatal in SC2, either in the short term or long term. The correct way to solve this is not to give more scouting, because scouting doesn't give you a crystal ball into the future. The correct way is to make it so that decisions aren't as fatal (caused by ridiculous macro mechanics).
It doesn't necessarily have to be harder to execute in order to raise the skill ceiling. If you just add means of choice then it will naturally increase the skill ceiling. The more choice, and the more instances there is to screw up, the better. One thing that I don't agree with that is being introduced in HotS is that there is hydra speed at Hive tech, while there is hydra range at Lair. This reduces choice because there's only one upgrade to choose from at Lair and an additional one at Hive. In bw hydra range and speed were at the same tech, therefore there was a choice, and you can cater builds/timing pushes based around each choice that is given to you.
On January 24 2012 10:49 TheTurk wrote: It doesn't have to be unplayable. Just let there exist a skill cap that isn't easily conquered.
I just don't understand this sentiment at all. Show me a SINGLE game where anyone has played anywhere close to perfectly, please. Even the best of the best in GSL are still playing far below the theoretical skill cap, even as they are rapidly improving month to month. Just because BW made it extremely difficult just to macro at a mediocre level and move your army around does not mean that SC2 is easy or that SC2 has a low skill cap. C'mon people!
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: Do We Want The Game Harder?
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: It is not really a discussion on whether or not it should be harder, that is for another thread
Really?
I feel like it should be pretty apparent from real-world sports that making something harder does not automatically lose you viewers. Football isn't easy.
That said, I don't think SC2 needs to be made articifically more difficult by bringing back limited control groups or whatever.
A game is only as hard as the competition within it. There is no skill cap in a game like StarCraft II. Right now, the game can seem coin-flippy because the skill level is still relatively close between the top level players and the rest. With time, the best of the best will find ways to always beat people that they're better than, and people will consider the game to be less coin-flippy
Didn't play or watch SC because I wanted it to become popular. I started watching because I was amazed at what people could do in the game compared to what I could barely do. If the game gets harder, I just see myself getting more amazed at their feats. If the game gets popular or less popular then so be it, it was meant to be.
if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
On January 24 2012 11:35 AxelTVx wrote: if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
It should be easy for the game to develop much better skill-indexing without losing the things that make it a great spectator sport and source of revenue. I really doubt any true 'pro' players would drop off the radar if the game got harder, but the goal from Blizzard's point of view shouldn't be (and isn't) "make it harder."
The game is already getting 'harder' as we speak, because people are learning it, perfecting strategies and then casting them aside as new ones are found. Whether things need to be changed at the design level isn't clear, but it can't hurt. They won't change the fundamentals like taking bases, having more supply, winning fights efficiently and that sort of thing.
the game definitely needs to be harder. whether or not that should be implemented by limiting the ui, i believe something should be done to allow greater utility to be extracted out of units. (eg. bw mutas, carriers, and vultures). day 9 said it best in one of his dailys. if you a-move mutas and vultures, they're pretty shit, but if you micro them properly, it becomes WAYY stronger. also, since macro was a lot harder then it is now, simply getting a maxed army really quickly was impressive, and having many intense micro battles to gain little advantages in order to max out first was crucial. now its mostly hurr durr max out and a-move. though honestly, sc2 has done a lot better than previously anticipated and the game is too young to have a final judgement on it yet (bw pros have yet to switch over). all in all, i think we're almost there.
On January 24 2012 11:35 AxelTVx wrote: if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
Even in the game's current state, SC2 is losing players across all regions except in Korea. So, I don't think what you said is true at all. Keeping the game easy does nothing besides catering to casuals who wouldn't be feel attached to the game and will leave soon enough.
blows my mind when people say sc2 is nub friendly. Easier than sc:bw - sure. But you must be delusional to argue that sc2 is noob friendly, its much harder to pick up than most of the games out of there, Bronze/silver, for example, has 0 chance vs plat/diamond etc, not even talking masters and up. In noob friendly games you have a shot at killing people with much more experience than you, at least. Here - no way.
on topic though, i think it should become harder (at least on higher lvls) with added variety of strategies, more impact of unit control etc (not by removing mbs and other nonsense).
how about best of both worlds? They should make it even more noob friendly at lower levels to get people to stick around, but harder at higher levels.. idk how though:D
The game is hard enough as it is. There are areas ALL players can improve on and a lot of the mechanics of what make SC2 arguably easier than BW are things that should stay in the game and were missing from BW due to the limitations back when it was made. It is a Real-time Strategy game, it should mostly come down to strategy if you ask me and I feel SC2 has helped do that without crippling what made Starcraft awesome.
On the other hand though I believe BW wasn't as popular in the west simply due to the fact that esports as a whole was a lot smaller and the internet didn't really hit big for a few years after release. As a whole there were many social and technical factors which didn't allow for it to be as big as it could have been.
On January 24 2012 11:47 iokke wrote: blows my mind when people say sc2 is nub friendly. Easier than sc:bw - sure. But you must be delusional to argue that sc2 is noob friendly, its much harder to pick up than most of the games out of there, Bronze/silver, for example, has 0 chance vs plat/diamond etc, not even talking masters and up. In noob friendly games you have a shot at killing people with much more experience than you, at least. Here - no way.
Surely the bronze/silver league players have no chance against those from the higher leagues. But, that's really an extreme example. You're talking about players who just picked up the game / are playing RTS games for the first time.
Even when you watch pro players stream, they still lose quite frequently to random nobodies. Even dragon lost to a diamond player on SEA server the other day, while he's playing on a friend's account. That's how volatile this game is.
On January 24 2012 11:47 iokke wrote: blows my mind when people say sc2 is nub friendly. Easier than sc:bw - sure. But you must be delusional to argue that sc2 is noob friendly, its much harder to pick up than most of the games out of there, Bronze/silver, for example, has 0 chance vs plat/diamond etc, not even talking masters and up. In noob friendly games you have a shot at killing people with much more experience than you, at least. Here - no way.
Surely the bronze/silver league players have no chance against those from the higher leagues. But, that's really an extreme example. You're talking about players who just picked up the game / are playing RTS games for the first time.
Even when you watch pro players stream, they still lose quite frequently to random nobodies. Even dragon lost to a diamond player on SEA server the other day, while he's playing on a friend's account. That's how volatile this game is.
idk man I've been diamond since forever (played since beta), and ran into desrow during one of the tourneys. I might as well have been bronze..
When my mmr jumps a bit and i start playing better masters players i can also see a big difference and very rarely beat them
The example is not that extreme, we're talking noob friendly so I'm picking leagues with newer players. Pro's may lose to randoms, but the people they play are hardly newbies, and besides don't forget pros do a lot of testing/messing around on ladder. In tournament results such upsets are much more rare and we often get excited about them
On January 24 2012 11:49 Kirazaki wrote: The game is hard enough as it is. There are areas ALL players can improve on and a lot of the mechanics of what make SC2 arguably easier than BW are things that should stay in the game and were missing from BW due to the limitations back when it was made. It is a Real-time Strategy game, it should mostly come down to strategy if you ask me and I feel SC2 has helped do that without crippling what made Starcraft awesome.
On the other hand though I believe BW wasn't as popular in the west simply due to the fact that esports as a whole was a lot smaller and the internet didn't really hit big for a few years after release. As a whole there were many social and technical factors which didn't allow for it to be as big as it could have been.
Trust me the reason why Brood wasn't popular in the west is definitely not because of the internet phenomenon. It is because people have NEVER thought about broadcasting the game as a form of entertainment on television.
The Koreans did it through a channel named Tooniverse, a channel for cartoons. The players weren't even playing in booth but on a mere Ping Pong table set up by the channel's executive. By no means it was meant for serious play. But then later on, the event got a lot of positive praises from the public, people thought it was a enjoyment spectating "WarCraft in space". Subsequently, the Emperor of Terran marched its army into scene. The fangirls loved that charisma of this Boxer character, fangirls squealed at his entrance. This have attracted many audience into watching the game, the game became more and more popular as sponsors rolled in. Plus the most important piece of the history is the rise of PC Bangs in Korea at the time of the game(Brood War)'s release, therefore having the youth of Korea obsessing over SC1. Everything was perfect as literally the stars aligned together.
Second reason is the one you've mentioned on the social issues. See when the like of BoxeR, YellOw, NaDa, Giyom and etc. bursted out, they were treated like rockstars by the fans. In the Western world, you would only get insulted for gaming for the lack of life which still, to a lesser extent exist today.
On January 23 2012 21:11 Blazinghand wrote: The hardness of the game is all that matters to me.
Yes, oh, yes.... I want this game to be hard. All I want to be able to feel its hardness. I wish to sense it as I grasp my mouse and feel its sinewy cord and its coarse texture pads. I need to know it's hard as I gently brush my fingertips across my slick black keyboard. I yearn to press against the hardness of the high skill ceiling as I ladder. I love to feel it pushing me down. I need to feel the hardness inside me as I become hard like the game, as it hardens me and makes me a better gamer. I want to feel the hardness pound away at me and make me gosu.
Pro's may lose to randoms, but the people they play are hardly newbies, and besides don't forget pros do a lot of testing/messing around on ladder. In tournament results such upsets are much more rare and we often get excited about them
No one is claiming the game is newb friendly. Of course you will lose when you're still learning the game. Once they know the basics, even mimicking a pro's build for particular matchups is sufficient to give them an undeserving win. They don't even need to be better than their opponents or anything. This game only very slightly rewards the better mechanical player for even games. People are claiming that the game is sometimes not hard enough to differentiate mediocre players from good players.
Also, don't be silly. If they're messing around on the ladder, I wouldn't be using that as an example. Some of them are even reviewing the replays after they lose.
On January 24 2012 12:13 plogamer wrote: I wanted the option of voting for none of the above. But in lieu of such an option, my vote went for keeping it the same.
The game needs to be linear. From the lowest to the highest of skill levels, the game should be entertaining, engaging and challenging.
If you see children playing soccer, would you be thinking, "The game needs to be harder"?
Soccer doesn't have enough spikes on the ball, and it doesn't randomly explode during the game like a hand grenade. The out of bounds lines need to be an actual moat filled with lava, and the midfield line needs to be a razor sharp trip wire. Soccer is too easy for children.
On January 24 2012 12:13 plogamer wrote: I wanted the option of voting for none of the above. But in lieu of such an option, my vote went for keeping it the same.
The game needs to be linear. From the lowest to the highest of skill levels, the game should be entertaining, engaging and challenging.
If you see children playing soccer, would you be thinking, "The game needs to be harder"?
Soccer doesn't have enough spikes on the ball, and it doesn't randomly explode during the game like a hand grenade. The out of bounds lines need to be an actual moat filled with lava, and the midfield line needs to be a razor sharp trip wire. Soccer is too easy for children.
Er, I used the children playing soccer as a contrast to a professional league soccer. Or am I getting trolled?
On January 24 2012 11:35 AxelTVx wrote: if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
Even in the game's current state, SC2 is losing players across all regions except in Korea. So, I don't think what you said is true at all. Keeping the game easy does nothing besides catering to casuals who wouldn't be feel attached to the game and will leave soon enough.
No, there are by far more western pro gamers than there are in BW, because the game is a lot easier. By catering to the casuals, more people get interested. This allows them to research into the game, and possibly aim for pro. If the game is too hard, then what you have just predicted will happen. If the game is harder, we will see top quality games. However, the western seen will most likely start to die out.
On January 24 2012 11:35 AxelTVx wrote: if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
Even in the game's current state, SC2 is losing players across all regions except in Korea. So, I don't think what you said is true at all. Keeping the game easy does nothing besides catering to casuals who wouldn't be feel attached to the game and will leave soon enough.
No, there are by far more western pro gamers than there are in BW, because the game is a lot easier. By catering to the casuals, more people get interested. This allows them to research into the game, and possibly aim for pro. If the game is too hard, then what you have just predicted will happen. If the game is harder, we will see top quality games. However, the western seen will most likely start to die out.
Evidence for the bold text?
Are you drawing the link between 2 isolated things this way? Fact 1. Game is easier. Fact 2. There are more western pros. Therefore, there are more western pros because game is easier?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Doesn't the difficulty involved deal very heavily on the people you play? Like, you play against other people, and you cant mean that you want your opponents to be harder. So what we're saying here is that we want a larger skill gap, so it's more difficult for other people to play? I dont see how it matters when you're always playing someone else.. If we were talking about single player, then ya. i get it. But when you play against another human constantly idk why the mechanical arduousness of the game needs to increase.
more micro capabilities. There is no counter micro to forcefields or Fungal growth. There's a lack of "strategy" in my opinion because of land control, deathballs, and various mechanics that discourage such play. Get harder, make me sweat like Broodwar pros even though I'm not a pro in either game!
If you're just comparing SC2 to BW then yes it's easier, but if you're comparing SC2 to any other popular game out there on the market then it's a TON more difficult and complex by comparison.
So much so that yes I think it does turn off a lot of people to the game because they feel like they have to climb a mountain to grasp even basic concepts. I've talked to a lot of my friends about this trying to convert them over to SC2 from games like LoL and CoD. SC2 takes a lot of effort to learn and is very unforgiving compared to other multiplayer games out there so it turns away a lot of potentially new players.
I've read a ton of stuff about how there needs to be an increase in difficulty in order to make this game as an e-sport as competitve as BW is but there needs to be a balance in making it both difficult yet accessible and at the moment I'd argue it's rather inaccessable for a lot of players.
There has to be a balance of both, that's the bottom line.
i dont agree to make the game "harder" "i dont want to play a game that depends more on who is the better robot" but i agree with making the game more rewarding for the pros.micro mechanics/scouting options/and rewarding reads more its depressing to see pros knowing exactly whats going on but still lose to it.
the only thing that rewards you the most in sc2"in my opinion" is spreading your army because of the ridiculous splash dmg. mechanic. but thats about it.
Dont forget that the rts.genre is a small niche and a learning cliff type of game where you get kicked in the face when you want to climb its even a smaller one.
and pls. stop talking yeah i want a hard game bla bla when you are not even able to master this one."and i dont mean master league with that" and when you are one of the huks,idras,heros then fudge you guys you are the 0.1% <3 and you play the game because of me the 98%
Pro's may lose to randoms, but the people they play are hardly newbies, and besides don't forget pros do a lot of testing/messing around on ladder. In tournament results such upsets are much more rare and we often get excited about them
No one is claiming the game is newb friendly. Of course you will lose when you're still learning the game. Once they know the basics, even mimicking a pro's build for particular matchups is sufficient to give them an undeserving win. They don't even need to be better than their opponents or anything. This game only very slightly rewards the better mechanical player for even games. People are claiming that the game is sometimes not hard enough to differentiate mediocre players from good players.
Also, don't be silly. If they're messing around on the ladder, I wouldn't be using that as an example. Some of them are even reviewing the replays after they lose.
I think i read on page one about how newb friendly the game is was writing about that. I'd argue that a mechanically better players will win much more. I honestly do believe that mechanically better players get rewarded plenty, unless your really behind on planning/strategy. sure someone can copy a pro's build, and if he is decent he may win against you if YOU dont react properly. In that case you should lose the game even if your mechanics are better;o Did he just get lucky on the build? Maybe. You still should have lost if you didnt scout/react well. There's nothing wrong with losing because your strategy is inferior. Again, if your mechanics are better and strategy is up to par, you will still win more than lose.
Also, ofc you can lose to random things from "lesser players", but this applies to any game, doesn't it?
tldr edit: Maybe sometimes lesser players get lucky and win, but in the long run the game does reward the better player.
On January 24 2012 11:35 AxelTVx wrote: if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
Even in the game's current state, SC2 is losing players across all regions except in Korea. So, I don't think what you said is true at all. Keeping the game easy does nothing besides catering to casuals who wouldn't be feel attached to the game and will leave soon enough.
No, there are by far more western pro gamers than there are in BW, because the game is a lot easier. By catering to the casuals, more people get interested. This allows them to research into the game, and possibly aim for pro. If the game is too hard, then what you have just predicted will happen. If the game is harder, we will see top quality games. However, the western seen will most likely start to die out.
I'd argue the general world is more ready for tons of western progamers than 10 years ago when starcraft 1 came out. Easy doesn't equal more non koreans.. The game has a significant margin for being harder and i really dont think destiny or idra will quit if the game gets harder. Itll just reward better players, which is what we want no? In short i disagree
On January 24 2012 11:35 AxelTVx wrote: if you want the game to grow in the western world, then No.
But if you want to see only the best players win (Best Koreans) then the game has to be harder. It's what you want, enlarge e-sports or better quality games.
Exactly!
Excellent, you have an enlarged esports scene...for what purpose if the game still sucks? So you would rather have a more popular game than a better game? If so, I pity you.
SC2 is just more accesible with auto MM, auto mining, MBS, and unlimited unit selection. That kind of stuff should not be a barrier to entry. Pretty sure we're past the point of SC2 bashing because of ease of entry aren't we? The play has gotten better every single GSL and the top end pros are obviously on a different level than the others (Mvp vs low Code S, etc.). So no, it doesn't need to get 'harder'.
On January 24 2012 12:13 plogamer wrote: I wanted the option of voting for none of the above. But in lieu of such an option, my vote went for keeping it the same.
The game needs to be linear. From the lowest to the highest of skill levels, the game should be entertaining, engaging and challenging.
If you see children playing soccer, would you be thinking, "The game needs to be harder"?
Soccer doesn't have enough spikes on the ball, and it doesn't randomly explode during the game like a hand grenade. The out of bounds lines need to be an actual moat filled with lava, and the midfield line needs to be a razor sharp trip wire. Soccer is too easy for children.
Er, I used the children playing soccer as a contrast to a professional league soccer. Or am I getting trolled?
uhm you are getting trolled <.< that blew right over your head initially didn't it? lol
OT: my personal feelings are that a game needs to be harder for a prolevel player yet accessable and playable to a newbie.. idk there needs to be a better middle ground.
On January 24 2012 13:26 oxxo wrote: SC2 is just more accesible with auto MM, auto mining, MBS, and unlimited unit selection. That kind of stuff should not be a barrier to entry. Pretty sure we're past the point of SC2 bashing because of ease of entry aren't we? The play has gotten better every single GSL and the top end pros are obviously on a different level than the others (Mvp vs low Code S, etc.). So no, it doesn't need to get 'harder'.
i beg to differ, there is a maximum unit selection of 255!
On January 24 2012 13:26 oxxo wrote: SC2 is just more accesible with auto MM, auto mining, MBS, and unlimited unit selection. That kind of stuff should not be a barrier to entry. Pretty sure we're past the point of SC2 bashing because of ease of entry aren't we? The play has gotten better every single GSL and the top end pros are obviously on a different level than the others (Mvp vs low Code S, etc.). So no, it doesn't need to get 'harder'.
i beg to differ, there is a maximum unit selection of 255!
If you're just comparing SC2 to BW then yes it's easier, but if you're comparing SC2 to any other popular game out there on the market then it's a TON more difficult and complex by comparison.
We do not need the game to be 'harder'. Things like auto mining, infinite unit selection, smart casting etc have made the game easier to play, allowing more casuals and a larger user base, and this is a great thing. What the game does need however is additional 'optional' tricks that can be used to get ahead.
For example - mineral boosting. This trick was discovered early in sc2, allowing high APM players a slight advantage by makin their workers mine more efficiently adding the return cargo command into the mix. It had zero effect on casual players who could still mine normally if they wished and added a further layer for the better players to get ahead in the early game. Yet this was removed by blizzard, even though it's almost the perfect type mechanic to have in sc2.
On January 24 2012 13:26 oxxo wrote: SC2 is just more accesible with auto MM, auto mining, MBS, and unlimited unit selection. That kind of stuff should not be a barrier to entry. Pretty sure we're past the point of SC2 bashing because of ease of entry aren't we? The play has gotten better every single GSL and the top end pros are obviously on a different level than the others (Mvp vs low Code S, etc.). So no, it doesn't need to get 'harder'.
This. I don't understand why people are begging for 'harder' when the GSL just keeps getting better and better and the truly elite are starting to truly distinguish themselves...
I think the game needs to be accessible as is, but just needs a few complexities added(thinking the expansions will fix this). I'm ok with the game being accessible to those that haven't had much rts experience, but at the highest level of play I think a few more units and functions need to be added in order to "win"
On January 24 2012 13:49 Peleus wrote: For example - mineral boosting. This trick was discovered early in sc2, allowing high APM players a slight advantage by makin their workers mine more efficiently adding the return cargo command into the mix. It had zero effect on casual players who could still mine normally if they wished and added a further layer for the better players to get ahead in the early game. Yet this was removed by blizzard, even though it's almost the perfect type mechanic to have in sc2.
You can see it as a 'trick' or you can see it as a bug. As a mid-masters player who had the APM available to do the return cargo trick for the first 4-5 minutes of each game, I saw it as super annoying. It's not impressive to watch or interesting to do, and doesn't really add any depth to the game. I'm glad Blizzard gets rid of such bugs.
Phoenix's for a while wouldn't disengage the graviton beam after the unit they were carrying died, making it so Protoss had to cancel the graviton beam manually. Sure, this adds arbitrary APM usage to the game, but it's really a bug, and was rightfully removed. I think Blizzard made the right calls when eliminating bugs that were unintended and don't add to the game.
I can understand the feeling of having SC2 harder, as in BW, but part of the difficulty of BW was because of the horrible UI and limitations of the game: in this day and age, you can't limit your unit selection to 12, or let players fight with the horrible path finding, and use "to increase the skill cap" as an excuse. Automining is also a part of that, having to select every SCV and tell them to mine manually isn't exactly intuitive, nor particularly fun.
Now, introducing some micro intensive units in the following expansions might be a good and efficient way to increase the skill cap in SC2, and I hope they do that. Strategy wise, I think what SC2 needs is just time.
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.
What a ridiculous nonsensical throw-away comment. You say that as if code B players are scrubs who are shit at Starcraft. MC, who was at a time considered the best SC2 player in the world by some, quickly fell into code B shortly after his great success. The fact that MVP doesn’t insta-win every game with 100% win rate to every player outside of code S is not solid grounds to claim the skill cap is too low.
But seriously, everyone has their ups and down. Just because a top level player lost a set to someone relatively unknown doesn't mean anything. In the long run, the top player will remain top as long as the skills are there to back it up.
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: All please read: this thread was supposed to be arguing the fact that it is the ease of the game that draws the large crowds, and without it it would be a game for the minority, not the masses. It is not really a discussion on whether or not it should be harder, that is for another thread.
What I'm trying to say is that because BW was so hard, it was very limited to who could actually play the game, but because SC2 is easier many more people can play and that is a big reason why it has shown popularity in the west like it has
I disagree. BW wasn't as popular (in the foreign scene) because few took RTS as seriously (during its early years that is) as now.
Thanks to BW developing eSports for the RTS genre, SC2 (it being a hyped up sequel helps) flourished well.
Basically I think if SC2 had BW mechanics, the game would have been probably the same in terms of popularity.
The only difference between making the game harder (or less convenient) is that there is a bigger gap in ranks and meaning of the game. Instead of the focus or attention being made towards unit control or the generalities of macroing, there is more attention to microing and thus the skill ceiling is raised, but so is the difference in skill and work between each player.
So what do you want? Do you want a game that has an intergrated difficulty or one that sweeps these discrepancies in order to ensure that the person with the better overall strategy or basis of strategy overcomes his opponent.
this is ignoring, of course, that the game isn't balanced entirely or favours one race over another. Additionally, the higher the skill ceiling, the less convenient the game is and the less people can relate to it and thus perhaps why MW3 is appealing than Quake Live similar to HoN and LoL (though, S2 shot themselves in the foot).
The skill ceiling should rise, but it should not be harder to get into. And it most definitely will rise as the game gets figured out more and new and better upcoming players join the scene.
On January 23 2012 20:54 firehand101 wrote: All please read: this thread was supposed to be arguing the fact that it is the ease of the game that draws the large crowds, and without it it would be a game for the minority, not the masses. It is not really a discussion on whether or not it should be harder, that is for another thread.
What I'm trying to say is that because BW was so hard, it was very limited to who could actually play the game, but because SC2 is easier many more people can play and that is a big reason why it has shown popularity in the west like it has
I disagree. BW wasn't as popular (in the foreign scene) because few took RTS as seriously (during its early years that is) as now.
Thanks to BW developing eSports for the RTS genre, SC2 (it being a hyped up sequel helps) flourished well.
Basically I think if SC2 had BW mechanics, the game would have been probably the same in terms of popularity.
Well im not too sure, i think that if it did have BW mechanics we would most likely see a smaller player base over a larger period of time just due to the difficulty. But we will never know i guess...
lol @ easy games being more popular. League of legends and COD are popular among gamers because they're casually fun and laid back, but they're not games your going to bring back to your mom and say watch what I can do. The best way e-sports can grow (its already growing so i guess explode or become mainstream are better words) is if a game impresses people enough for them to say "WOW" when they are watching games being played and admire the skill of the players (this happens too obviously but admiration increases as skill increases). So give pros a game that challenges them and allows them to show as much skill as possible and the people will come.
I'm fine with the difficulty now, but I'd like to see it get harder at the highest levels, tricks that you can do, and corners you can cut with good micro. Like say a marine timing without tanks and just really really good micro, something like that.
On January 24 2012 15:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: The skill ceiling should rise, but it should not be harder to get into. And it most definitely will rise as the game gets figured out more and new and better upcoming players join the scene.
Agreed.
To compare the skill ceiling between a game that's not even two years old to one that's over 10 years old is not fair.
Let the metagame develop and let the pros continue to push the limit until we see a REAL skill ceiling and then we can start making comparisons.
Mechanics are easier - which is a good thing. I don't see why you wouldn't want to improve upon macro mechanics. There is so many areas of this game that are being untouched strategically. Warp prisms are finally starting to see use, and Protoss barely touches Stargate play at this point outside of PvZ. You can argue it's useless, but I'd say people just haven't found a useful way to use it yet.
The APM it takes to micromanage macro related things will eventually go into micro-managing armies. It will eventually lead into more action, and the game will stabilize a great deal. Multi-pronged attacks are already becoming more and more common in match-ups. The biggest problems right now with those "suprise" wins is likely scouting. That is one area the game could improve upon.
With that said, when I'm watching a game of BW or SC2. I don't really care about the macro aspect - do you? The tedious things that gamers do to have solid macro mechanics are fantastic and deserve respect, but they aren't flashy, and they aren't why most people watch the game. We want to see action. Eleviating stress on macro and improving game play features, will eventually transfer over to more micro. Do you see people commenting "dude, that guy has sick timing on all his buildings" or "I can't believe he managed to hold that off with the units he has!". What's more exciting?
The skill ceiling of SC2 is still unknown. In fact, I very much doubt there is one. That's what rules about RTS games - they constantly evolve. While BW mechanics are very difficult, people master them and it becomes second nature at some point. That doesn't produce more interesting games to watch, or an interesting game to play for those who like to play casually. Also to maintain your mechanics is very difficult. I play 3 games a month because of University, and when the game was first released I played a lot. I was high level diamond playing 2000+ players and winning 66% of my games. My APM peaked around 110, and with the new system it peaks around 80. I'm a macro orientated player with solid mechanics because I played an RTS competatively prior to this (Dune 2000 - won lots of stuff). That game was even harder than BW mechanics by a long shot, but that doesn't make it a better game either. You needed an absolutely absurb amount of APM to keep your macro flawless in that game, but it's still not a better game because of it. Macro is only one part of the game though, and now I am mid-to-high diamond. I don't know any timings nor build orders that aren't outdated. Many of the people I practiced with are GM or rank 1 masters now. This just goes to show how much the game has evolved in just over a year. There is a lot more to look at with mechanics then just crisp economy management.
I like the adjustments they've made to be honest. I think making the game less tedious in terms of macro, will make it more tedious in terms of micro. Give it more time.
On January 24 2012 15:42 Chaggi wrote: I'm fine with the difficulty now, but I'd like to see it get harder at the highest levels, tricks that you can do, and corners you can cut with good micro. Like say a marine timing without tanks and just really really good micro, something like that.
I have seen MKP do a marine timing before, cant remember exactly when it was but it was recent and he just straight up owned his opponent.
The AI is definetly way better in SC2 which has made playing it far more enjoyable that BW. I don't think making the game easier would subtract from pro level playing at all if anything more emphasis would be put into decision making and proper strategy implementation.
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.
The BW pros are playing a game where every build is figured out, they've had enough time to practice the game to be near the absolute skillcap, they barely have any holes in their play.
The SC2 pros are playing a game where not nearly every build nor playstyle has been figured out, they haven't had enough time with the game to actually reach anywhere near the skillcap nor tighten up every hole in their gameplay. You constantly see new cheese builds coming from the top, new macro openings and the such which can make even top players lose due to them not knowing the existence of that build.
Once everything like that is figured out in SC2 and the top pros have spent enough time mastering Marine Macro, triple pronged drops and not losing to something as silly as a ling runby while their depot isn't up then you'll see those top players winning consistently vs lesser opponents.
The fact that people expect the very top of the SC2 players to win every single game surprises me, this game is still relatively new and there's alot of things that can still catch the top players off-guard, this isn't because of bad game-design, it's because shit needs to get figured out and pros needs to get better.
Please don't tell me MVP, NesTea and MC have reached the skillcap of SC2. They're damn good but I still see bad marine splitting from MVP time to time (and by bad I mean not perfect as it should be at that lvl). I still see NesTea making bad decisions and not microing perfectly (almost every pro sacrifices their infestors mindlessly every time they try to fungal for example) and I still see MC simply not playing at his best from time to time.
The fact that people point fingers at the GAME SC2 rather than it's players is funny though...
Does this game need to get harder? No, not really. The level it is right now is fine imo, give it time and we'll see how it plays out in a year.
You know, that "BW players had 10 years to figure out..." comment actually means that before BW (and competitive RTS) took hold in Korea, the concepts of macro, micro, timings, expansions and how they affect the game, strategy and army movement etc. weren't known at all. It was built from nothing. That's why Boxer, even in its top form, won't take a game off current game's monsters like Flash. So SC2 is already built on these concepts so its improvement has been much faster.
I'm sorry but I'm following a lot more BW compared to SC2 nowadays and I'm noticing that there are inherent problems with how WOL works. Due to MBS and ease of macro, it is impossible to come back if you lose the main deathball battle. The clumping mechanic and smarter unit ai means a lot more firepower available, and splash damage is all the deal in big battles. Units just die too damn fast before you can do anything (and sometimes you literallly cannot do anything, force fields and fungals) Smartcast removes the skill of good caster use (carpet storms and carpet emps with a few clicks). There are many very poorly designed units that are just a-move (colossus,roach,marauder) Interesting units like Reaver which require and reward good control are absent. Sentry and Blink Stalkers are really the only units that reward good control through forcefield usage and blink micro. Battles end far too quickly to allow an efficient retreat or micro that makes a big difference.
There are subtle but really nice ways in how BW units function. Take Reaver. It hits like a freight train (100 unupgraded and 125 upgraded damage) and with a splash. Yet it is probably the slowest unit in the entire game, so you cannot just take it, a-move and cross your fingers. You need a fast way to transport it to the battle, and Shuttle provides that. Shuttle is fast, but it is prone to be sniped by your enemy, so you need to control it well, because if you fail, you not only lose it but also the precious Reaver inside. Plus the lost opportunity for harrassment and extra firepower for your army. You can take a deathball with Colossi and Stalkers with a few sentries and just a-move across the map, and the only thing you need to do is good forcefields that honestly aren't that hard to execute, and protecting your Colossii, which the stalkers can take care of. But this isn't an interesting interaction between these units, it is just basic stuff, a unit covering another. A Shuttle brings a whole new depth into how you can use a Reaver. SC2 lacks that interaction. A Colossi harrass does nothing but make your opponent laugh, its whole function is to provide firepower in a major engagement.
Warp Prism could be interesting if Warp-in mechanic was exclusive only to Warp Prism's energy area but due to Pylons giving the same effect, they aren't as interesting as they could be. Still, it's a great idea and it deserves an applaud, but it could have been much better.
Get this: There isn't much more if anything left to figure out in WOL. HOTS will bring its own dynamics and then there will be a period of learning, just like it happened last year with WOL. But for WOL, the progress is pretty much over unless Blizzard introduces a major change through a patch. I personally honestly believe the biggest problem of WOL is how Protoss is designed. TvZ being arguably the best matchup in the game closely followed by TvT shows this clearly.
I've personally never played BW, but from what I've gathered; it's an admirable game. I'd like to see SC2 gradually get harder, just for the sake of skill being the most important thing, not hiding your tech or w/e.
Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
The game should get harder with each subsequent expansion in terms of unit design and how the effectiveness of units increases with skilled usage. Basically, "a-move friendly" units like the colossus should be phased out - Blizzard shouldn't be in adding more units strictly to make a-moving more effective (which is part of their reasoning behind the Battle Hellion)
On January 24 2012 16:22 Koshi wrote: Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
Why though? I mean if you think of it, how much depth does the the fact that you have to bind and use 3 hotkeys instead of one adds to our strategy game? 1a 2a 3a instead of 1a? I get being nostalgic about BW, but I really see no reason for a change like this. If I have to use 3 keys to create a worker instead of 1... would that make the game better?
On January 24 2012 16:22 Koshi wrote: Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
Why though? I mean if you think of it, how much depth does the the fact that you have to bind and use 3 hotkeys instead of one adds to our strategy game? 1a 2a 3a instead of 1a? I get being nostalgic about BW, but I really see no reason for a change like this. If I have to use 3 keys to create a worker instead of 1... would that make the game better?
I think you didn't play broodwar even at D rank because I don't even hot key my command center to even make a scv lol . I just use the F1,F2,F3 save screen key's to change between expansion and presto I can macro like a pro.
On January 24 2012 16:22 Koshi wrote: Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
Why though? I mean if you think of it, how much depth does the the fact that you have to bind and use 3 hotkeys instead of one adds to our strategy game? 1a 2a 3a instead of 1a? I get being nostalgic about BW, but I really see no reason for a change like this. If I have to use 3 keys to create a worker instead of 1... would that make the game better?
I think you didn't play broodwar even at D rank because I don't even hot key my command center to even make a scv lol . I just use the F1,F2,F3 save screen key's to change between expansion and presto I can macro like a pro.
good call, I just did single player in bw for a bit for fun, but i've read so many threads about BW mechanics vs SC2 mechanics.. I did play wc3 a lot where your binds were limited also (though not to the same extent). I really dont see how that adds to the game. well ur nit picking a bit too, in sc2 also usually takes at least 2 keys (hotkey + e for protoss...) im saying that if we just inserted extra steps, like hotkey + e + f + z, sure it would be harder, but how does that add to the game?
On January 24 2012 16:22 Koshi wrote: Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
Why though? I mean if you think of it, how much depth does the the fact that you have to bind and use 3 hotkeys instead of one adds to our strategy game? 1a 2a 3a instead of 1a? I get being nostalgic about BW, but I really see no reason for a change like this. If I have to use 3 keys to create a worker instead of 1... would that make the game better?
I think you didn't play broodwar even at D rank because I don't even hot key my command center to even make a scv lol . I just use the F1,F2,F3 save screen key's to change between expansion and presto I can macro like a pro.
good call, I just did single player in bw for a bit for fun, but i've read so many threads about BW mechanics vs SC2 mechanics.. I did play wc3 a lot where your binds were limited also (though not to the same extent). I really dont see how that adds to the game. well ur nit picking a bit too, in sc2 also usually takes at least 2 keys (hotkey + e for protoss...) im saying that if we just inserted extra steps, like hotkey + e + f + z, sure it would be harder, but how does that add to the game?
Meh the way I play things , I usually hotkey really crucial tech buildings like ebay,Armories to ensure I can get my upgrade's faster and I spare most of my hotkeys on my units . Having multiple hotkeys didn't impair me from making strategies because I still make correct decision along the way. Macroing in broodwar is actually quite straight forward , you just have to make more production buildings for terran and protoss and hatcheries for zerg . So it's nothing hard about macroing .
Oh you are asking for adding extra steps , but in broodwar there is no extra steps at all , I just press f3 and I am at my 6 barracks selecting each barracks pressing M and C to macro marine and medic and F if i want to make some firebats . Pretty easy stuff happening here.
Does blizzard even read the TL forum? We can debate it out for an entire month and it wouldn't matter. Even something as trivial as removing close spawns for the ladder maps took them a year to implement. We can only wait and see what they decide to do with HotS. Also, someone needs to be a hero and ask them during the multiplayer panel at blizzcon.
I don't agree with the premise. I know a lot of people that played BW when it first game out, the game died out due to its graphics. The gaming market and Blizzard is much larger now then it was in 98 as well. I don't think the unpopularity of broodwar has anything to do with "how hard the game is to play" or whatever. If this was the case why did Korea make an esport out of it? There were plenty other games that were "easier to play" that could have become what broodwar became. Isn't something like 90% of players aren't even masters? Obviously people who don't have talent for this game still enjoy playing it so adding features to the game that would only make it harder on a high level shouldn't have much effect on the majority as far game experience.
As for the question, I think the game should be a little harder. Units should be harder to micro. Spectators love marine king for his marine control, but I feel the other races lack the aww of impressive micro. I miss broodwar's mutalisk vs marine micro and well executed reaver drops. They were impressive because we all knew how hard they were to control which I feel made the game more exciting for the spectator.
I don't want the game to be harder just for the sake of being hard, but I do want the game to be harder. Day9's Baseballs vs Frisbees pretty much sums up how I feel about this. SC2 units need to behave more like frisbees.
On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote: Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
Auto mine totally makes the game more fun. You can focus on making interesting decisions. Instead of doing the same thing 80 times a game. Something that is not a decision. Something you don't think about, you just have to do it. WTF are you talking about? I think the game should have more micro things to make it a little harder. More interesting decisions to make. That's what makes it fun.
On January 24 2012 16:20 Uncultured wrote: The game is slowly getting harder. As people are getting better/more familiar with it, and the skill cap is slowly rising.
This. We still haven't seen perfect play from any one player out there, and even if we had that just means it was perfect play in an underdeveloped meta game. You have to realize that as players get better and better more amazing feats are required to win. This sounds like common sense but everything is really up to the players and how good they get.
On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote: Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
Auto mine totally makes the game more fun. You can focus on making interesting decisions. Instead of doing the same thing 80 times a game. Something that is not a decision. Something you don't think about, you just have to do it. WTF are you talking about? I think the game should have more micro things to make it a little harder. More interesting decisions to make. That's what makes it fun.
First, I don't advocate non auto-mine, i'm just neutral, but what you're saying is wrong. It adds more depth to decision makin, you have to make more split decisions. It adds difficulty in one of the most important areas: screen control. You'll have to make a decision each time a worker is built: "Do i switch back to send it to mine, and lose focus on my army for a brief moment, or is it more important to watch my army than to potentially lose mining time".
Everyone wants a more spectacular game. Everyone wants to see good micro good engagements cool usage of game mechanics etc, and while they say it they dont want to change/sacriface anything. It wont happen that way. You cant be good at physics and dont open the book.
But first there needs to be a micro or mechanic to work with. Micro and mechanic that can rival pure macro 1a move.
This is somewhat relevant to the disscussion so Im gonna bring it up. There was a thread a while a go concerning the fact that it in Sc2 is hard for a good player to get extra value from units by microing better. The example in the text was that 5 marauders always wins against 4 marauders, and theres not so much you can do about it, However, MorroW commented in that thread that theres alot of neat stuff that he and other people wants to utilize, but that the game still is too hard to do those things.
Im definatley not aginst making the game harder though
On January 24 2012 18:29 Kamelixs wrote: This is somewhat relevant to the disscussion so Im gonna bring it up. There was a thread a while a go concerning the fact that it in Sc2 is hard for a good player to get extra value from units by microing better. The example in the text was that 5 marauders always wins against 4 marauders, and theres not so much you can do about it, However, MorroW commented in that thread that theres alot of neat stuff that he and other people wants to utilize, but that the game still is too hard to do those things.
Im definatley not aginst making the game harder though
Yeah... A lot of pros comment in these directions. TLO keeps on stating how he has so many ideas what he wants to do, but can't because he is still not fast enough and still experimenting with hotkey settings and ingame routines too much too have spare APM for this kind of stuff.
If you just watch the amount of targetfire possibilities armor types give players and how MMM is kited as one ctrl-group and army right now, often not even targetfirering at all, I don't see how this game lacks the potential for players to outmicro each other. But well... as long as the metagame in certain MUs is/was: Build a ton of units and sit on your ass until you can clash, there were hardly any possibilities for such things to develope. Thankfully this is pretty much only TvP and TvT when it's Mech vs Mech anymore. All other MUs just have those huge amounts of small engagements right now. (PvZ lacking a bit behind, but warp prisms, 4gate+1zealots and mutalisks have added more and more potential to those games)
[QUOTE]On January 24 2012 09:22 zeden wrote: [QUOTE]On January 24 2012 08:30 ChoboDane wrote: [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. [/QUOTE]
-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
to obviously a zerg player with just his mind on his own troubles.Injects are your macro mechanic.they are your way of pumping more units out.It's the same as a terran player or protoss player adds or doesnt add in time barracks/gates and all their other production facilites.In addition injects are cool cause even if u get supply blocked you don't really lose the production cycle(except if you try to hold an attack and you need units that specific second),You can just pump twice the units the next cycle.Missing your injects is like a terrand or protoss forgets gates or he doesnt add them at the right time.Comparing chronos and mules to creep spread maybe(which undeniable is a most valuable tool) could be more accurate.
On January 24 2012 18:29 Kamelixs wrote: This is somewhat relevant to the disscussion so Im gonna bring it up. There was a thread a while a go concerning the fact that it in Sc2 is hard for a good player to get extra value from units by microing better. The example in the text was that 5 marauders always wins against 4 marauders, and theres not so much you can do about it, However, MorroW commented in that thread that theres alot of neat stuff that he and other people wants to utilize, but that the game still is too hard to do those things.
Im definatley not aginst making the game harder though
I think we are mixing 2 things here, BW was harder but the difference of 4 marauders and 5 marauders in bw was possible because there was more "tools" to play with. You could set a trap on high ground, you could ambush a player and because there was not auto concave etc. the one who was controlling units first would gain advantage over the guy who didnt pay attention. Thats why Players are more active in bw, not because the game is easier or harder, but because you can FEEL the difference of being active. Limitations DOES NOT MATTER when they are applied to both players, in fact you can exploit your opponents limitations he cant overcome. Funny experiment, try to play bw for few days and try to get as much of it as you can, i bet that your D level play will be more active than sc2 mid master.
Now lets go back to sc2, pros dont do that, because they cant yet got their macro to 100% while doing tricks that give their only 5% efficiency, to compared 20% bw efficiency. In bw everyone will sacriface 1 macro cycle for that 20%, Flash does it Jd does it, the lack of automization makes losing 1 macro cycle much less of a burden in bw than in sc2, where you know that your opponent doesnt care about that 5 % unit efficiency and he only cares about macro and you try to sacriface even slight bit of macro means you gonna get oblitarated because of Snowball effect of macro in sc2. Mules Inject chrono and bazillion worker count equals in huge huge scale macro, and no ammount of 5% tricks gonna get you near it.
The conclusion is not that SC2 is harder than BW, the conclusion is simple: gameplay/strategy priorities are shifted.
I feel a lot of peopel are missing the point about removing automine. Bear in mind, I'm very very neutral on this issue. When SC2 came out, I loved automining. It's however important to rememeber that making the mechanics harder can be done for both macro and micro. 12 unit selection, no smartcast... all of that made the skill cap way higher in microing and made the mechanics for battle way harder. No auto-mine and no multiple selection of builds had the same effect, but for macro. What does this actually mean?
It means that focusing on learning macro meant more in BW. In SC2, you can at least get to gold/plat just by learning to macro well. In BW, the difference is way bigger. All you really have to learn to macro well as terran in SC2 is to hotkey your CCs, make sure they are building workers. Hotkey all your unit procuding structures on one key, make sure they are constantly producing. Make supply depots. Make bases. It's actually ridiculously easy. In BW, you have to constantly make workers AND go back and set them to mine, on each base. You have to make sure you were building out of all your unit producing structures, which means actually clicking on them, which forced you to use base cameras to have a chance. The bad AI made sure you couldn't just rally them to where you needed them.
All of this together made "learn to macro" a concept far more important than it currently is in SC2. The macro mechanics was a good addition to make this less so, perfect queen usage is ridiculously hard to achieve, chrono boost can be hard to keep useful, and MULEs... are still a ridiculously easy mechanic, but still.
When people ask for auto-mine and such to be removed, they don't do it because they love looking at their workers... they do it because they want the skill cap back, that good players didn't just do good strategies and awesome micro... they did this while constantly macroing in a sense which doesn't exist in SC2.
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.
The BW pros are playing a game where every build is figured out, they've had enough time to practice the game to be near the absolute skillcap, they barely have any holes in their play.
The SC2 pros are playing a game where not nearly every build nor playstyle has been figured out, they haven't had enough time with the game to actually reach anywhere near the skillcap nor tighten up every hole in their gameplay. You constantly see new cheese builds coming from the top, new macro openings and the such which can make even top players lose due to them not knowing the existence of that build.
Once everything like that is figured out in SC2 and the top pros have spent enough time mastering Marine Macro, triple pronged drops and not losing to something as silly as a ling runby while their depot isn't up then you'll see those top players winning consistently vs lesser opponents.
The fact that people expect the very top of the SC2 players to win every single game surprises me, this game is still relatively new and there's alot of things that can still catch the top players off-guard, this isn't because of bad game-design, it's because shit needs to get figured out and pros needs to get better.
Please don't tell me MVP, NesTea and MC have reached the skillcap of SC2. They're damn good but I still see bad marine splitting from MVP time to time (and by bad I mean not perfect as it should be at that lvl). I still see NesTea making bad decisions and not microing perfectly (almost every pro sacrifices their infestors mindlessly every time they try to fungal for example) and I still see MC simply not playing at his best from time to time.
The fact that people point fingers at the GAME SC2 rather than it's players is funny though...
Does this game need to get harder? No, not really. The level it is right now is fine imo, give it time and we'll see how it plays out in a year.
You know, that "BW players had 10 years to figure out..." comment actually means that before BW (and competitive RTS) took hold in Korea, the concepts of macro, micro, timings, expansions and how they affect the game, strategy and army movement etc. weren't known at all. It was built from nothing. That's why Boxer, even in its top form, won't take a game off current game's monsters like Flash. So SC2 is already built on these concepts so its improvement has been much faster.
I'm sorry but I'm following a lot more BW compared to SC2 nowadays and I'm noticing that there are inherent problems with how WOL works. Due to MBS and ease of macro, it is impossible to come back if you lose the main deathball battle. The clumping mechanic and smarter unit ai means a lot more firepower available, and splash damage is all the deal in big battles. Units just die too damn fast before you can do anything (and sometimes you literallly cannot do anything, force fields and fungals) Smartcast removes the skill of good caster use (carpet storms and carpet emps with a few clicks). There are many very poorly designed units that are just a-move (colossus,roach,marauder) Interesting units like Reaver which require and reward good control are absent. Sentry and Blink Stalkers are really the only units that reward good control through forcefield usage and blink micro. Battles end far too quickly to allow an efficient retreat or micro that makes a big difference.
There are subtle but really nice ways in how BW units function. Take Reaver. It hits like a freight train (100 unupgraded and 125 upgraded damage) and with a splash. Yet it is probably the slowest unit in the entire game, so you cannot just take it, a-move and cross your fingers. You need a fast way to transport it to the battle, and Shuttle provides that. Shuttle is fast, but it is prone to be sniped by your enemy, so you need to control it well, because if you fail, you not only lose it but also the precious Reaver inside. Plus the lost opportunity for harrassment and extra firepower for your army. You can take a deathball with Colossi and Stalkers with a few sentries and just a-move across the map, and the only thing you need to do is good forcefields that honestly aren't that hard to execute, and protecting your Colossii, which the stalkers can take care of. But this isn't an interesting interaction between these units, it is just basic stuff, a unit covering another. A Shuttle brings a whole new depth into how you can use a Reaver. SC2 lacks that interaction. A Colossi harrass does nothing but make your opponent laugh, its whole function is to provide firepower in a major engagement.
Warp Prism could be interesting if Warp-in mechanic was exclusive only to Warp Prism's energy area but due to Pylons giving the same effect, they aren't as interesting as they could be. Still, it's a great idea and it deserves an applaud, but it could have been much better.
Get this: There isn't much more if anything left to figure out in WOL. HOTS will bring its own dynamics and then there will be a period of learning, just like it happened last year with WOL. But for WOL, the progress is pretty much over unless Blizzard introduces a major change through a patch. I personally honestly believe the biggest problem of WOL is how Protoss is designed. TvZ being arguably the best matchup in the game closely followed by TvT shows this clearly.
On January 24 2012 16:22 Koshi wrote: Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
Why though? I mean if you think of it, how much depth does the the fact that you have to bind and use 3 hotkeys instead of one adds to our strategy game? 1a 2a 3a instead of 1a? I get being nostalgic about BW, but I really see no reason for a change like this. If I have to use 3 keys to create a worker instead of 1... would that make the game better?
-How would you like it if they changed the creep tumor spread system? Instead of having to click the new tumor and place it further, in HotS the creep tumor just automatically on cooldown spawns towards a point that you can decide on in the start and can be manually changed if needed. This feels unnatural not?
The game is far from played perfectly, but simple things like automine, MBS and mass unit selection can be added to the game and the pro's and master players will still be able to execute the same builds, perform at the same level, but will have a bigger reward for their practice.
There is a big misconception that extra "needless" clicks bring out worse timings/gameplay. I am certain that all the pro players who practice +8 hours a day can execute the same timings, build orders or strategies if they didn't have automine/MBS/1a. These "needless" clicks would bring much joy to casual gamers as well. People don't understand how great it is to have to click every building to make a unit. How much more beautiful an army moves if you can only select a limited amount at the time. Simply because they never had to do it. Like I said, what if tomorrow creep spread was automatic, would you like it?
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.
The BW pros are playing a game where every build is figured out, they've had enough time to practice the game to be near the absolute skillcap, they barely have any holes in their play.
The SC2 pros are playing a game where not nearly every build nor playstyle has been figured out, they haven't had enough time with the game to actually reach anywhere near the skillcap nor tighten up every hole in their gameplay. You constantly see new cheese builds coming from the top, new macro openings and the such which can make even top players lose due to them not knowing the existence of that build.
Once everything like that is figured out in SC2 and the top pros have spent enough time mastering Marine Macro, triple pronged drops and not losing to something as silly as a ling runby while their depot isn't up then you'll see those top players winning consistently vs lesser opponents.
The fact that people expect the very top of the SC2 players to win every single game surprises me, this game is still relatively new and there's alot of things that can still catch the top players off-guard, this isn't because of bad game-design, it's because shit needs to get figured out and pros needs to get better.
Please don't tell me MVP, NesTea and MC have reached the skillcap of SC2. They're damn good but I still see bad marine splitting from MVP time to time (and by bad I mean not perfect as it should be at that lvl). I still see NesTea making bad decisions and not microing perfectly (almost every pro sacrifices their infestors mindlessly every time they try to fungal for example) and I still see MC simply not playing at his best from time to time.
The fact that people point fingers at the GAME SC2 rather than it's players is funny though...
Does this game need to get harder? No, not really. The level it is right now is fine imo, give it time and we'll see how it plays out in a year.
You know, that "BW players had 10 years to figure out..." comment actually means that before BW (and competitive RTS) took hold in Korea, the concepts of macro, micro, timings, expansions and how they affect the game, strategy and army movement etc. weren't known at all. It was built from nothing. That's why Boxer, even in its top form, won't take a game off current game's monsters like Flash. So SC2 is already built on these concepts so its improvement has been much faster.
I'm sorry but I'm following a lot more BW compared to SC2 nowadays and I'm noticing that there are inherent problems with how WOL works. Due to MBS and ease of macro, it is impossible to come back if you lose the main deathball battle. The clumping mechanic and smarter unit ai means a lot more firepower available, and splash damage is all the deal in big battles. Units just die too damn fast before you can do anything (and sometimes you literallly cannot do anything, force fields and fungals) Smartcast removes the skill of good caster use (carpet storms and carpet emps with a few clicks). There are many very poorly designed units that are just a-move (colossus,roach,marauder) Interesting units like Reaver which require and reward good control are absent. Sentry and Blink Stalkers are really the only units that reward good control through forcefield usage and blink micro. Battles end far too quickly to allow an efficient retreat or micro that makes a big difference.
There are subtle but really nice ways in how BW units function. Take Reaver. It hits like a freight train (100 unupgraded and 125 upgraded damage) and with a splash. Yet it is probably the slowest unit in the entire game, so you cannot just take it, a-move and cross your fingers. You need a fast way to transport it to the battle, and Shuttle provides that. Shuttle is fast, but it is prone to be sniped by your enemy, so you need to control it well, because if you fail, you not only lose it but also the precious Reaver inside. Plus the lost opportunity for harrassment and extra firepower for your army. You can take a deathball with Colossi and Stalkers with a few sentries and just a-move across the map, and the only thing you need to do is good forcefields that honestly aren't that hard to execute, and protecting your Colossii, which the stalkers can take care of. But this isn't an interesting interaction between these units, it is just basic stuff, a unit covering another. A Shuttle brings a whole new depth into how you can use a Reaver. SC2 lacks that interaction. A Colossi harrass does nothing but make your opponent laugh, its whole function is to provide firepower in a major engagement.
Warp Prism could be interesting if Warp-in mechanic was exclusive only to Warp Prism's energy area but due to Pylons giving the same effect, they aren't as interesting as they could be. Still, it's a great idea and it deserves an applaud, but it could have been much better.
Get this: There isn't much more if anything left to figure out in WOL. HOTS will bring its own dynamics and then there will be a period of learning, just like it happened last year with WOL. But for WOL, the progress is pretty much over unless Blizzard introduces a major change through a patch. I personally honestly believe the biggest problem of WOL is how Protoss is designed. TvZ being arguably the best matchup in the game closely followed by TvT shows this clearly.
very nice post mate.
I agree with pretty much everyting in there.
Actually reaver - scarab mechanic is even more complex, even if somehow you let reaver into your mineral line you can still dodge or block the scarab till it expires, if opponent landed his reaver in bad spot this reaver may aswell not make a single kill, or only leave with 1 digit kill counter. There is mechanic of execution and counter-execution, and scarab is a pinnacle of it. It is physical object not capable of phasing through buildings and units, if you pick wrong target, and your opponents makes a wall of units blocking scarab it will do nothing. Now collosus, it shoots and your stuff dies. Thats it, you can only preemptively counter it, but there is no, "how i deal with it now, oh i didnt make corrupot/viking gg". And we are not talking even about spider mines, turrets, dt/mine correlation, vulture, lurker, defiler. Hell even 10 zergling used at a proper time can win you game, because all the tools are available (high dps zergling and dark swarm), decision and micro can win you a game. Leaving everything on the matter of if he scout or not, is just bringing binary style game with more metagame, counter feel but less tactic. Both are valid, but one is clearly more spectator friendly.
Collosus is the pinnacle of i need to see this or im dead soonish, its like carriers but carriers... you know the rest. Because forgg lately gets to much shit ill show you this.
the game was not over when forgg pushed with his brilliant build, in fact it was on razer's edge for almost 10 min, now see it remembering the interaction of scarab. How he dodges it, or faints his moves, this is the power struggle not build order win scenario. Its like equivalent of 1/1/1 where BW marines are as bad as tanks in tvp but this build alone justified it. Its timing attack precisely executed and masked. Kal couldnt see it coming with his observer because forgg had turret ring around his base, also he never showed more than 4 marines till later stage, when it was sure he is going for this.
On January 23 2012 21:17 mvtaylor wrote: I wish people would stop making Brood War out to be the utter pinnacle of everything that SC2 can in no way ever compare to.
Let's think of a few other reasons besides "skill cap" and "difficulty" that BW isn't as popular...
Gaming was not as popular back when BW was released as it is now, I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying gaming has become more mainstream between BW and SC2. Second to that I don't remember any occasions, ever, where people have en masse gone out and bought a game that was released ten years ago. As an extra to that I don't think people these days are too enthralled by a game whose graphics look so utterly dated.
Yes starcraft players may understand what's going on and be able to get more from it but a casual person looking at BW is going to think, wow, this hasn't aged well.
Now, on to the "lack of skill" in SC2... BW has been out for a decade, that has given the game so much time to develop and become what it is today. SC2 has had nowhere near as much time but even then you only need to compare the games from GSL open seasons to the Blizzard Cup and GSL November finals to see how far the game has advanced in that relatively short time.
Being able to have your whole army on one hotkey may make one big battle easier but it still doesn't make multitasking easier. You still see players who are able to handle three or four engagements at once (such as MVP dropping multiple places simultaneously while fighting) be able to come out ahead of those who aren't able to multitask so well.
Given more time the skill shown in SC2 will only get higher and higher and until someone plays a 40 minute or so "perfect" game I don't think people can talk of a cap. Yes BW is "harder" due to no auto mining and 12 units to a hotkey max but it's also harder as it's been out for so long and has had strategies developed for it so completely. It's not like cheese and build order wins don't exist only in SC2...
On January 24 2012 16:22 Koshi wrote: Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
Why though? I mean if you think of it, how much depth does the the fact that you have to bind and use 3 hotkeys instead of one adds to our strategy game? 1a 2a 3a instead of 1a? I get being nostalgic about BW, but I really see no reason for a change like this. If I have to use 3 keys to create a worker instead of 1... would that make the game better?
-How would you like it if they changed the creep tumor spread system? Instead of having to click the new tumor and place it further, in HotS the creep tumor just automatically on cooldown spawns towards a point that you can decide on in the start and can be manually changed if needed. This feels unnatural not?
The game is far from played perfectly, but simple things like automine, MBS and mass unit selection can be added to the game and the pro's and master players will still be able to execute the same builds, perform at the same level, but will have a bigger reward for their practice.
There is a big misconception that extra "needless" clicks bring out worse timings/gameplay. I am certain that all the pro players who practice +8 hours a day can execute the same timings, build orders or strategies if they didn't have automine/MBS/1a. These "needless" clicks would bring much joy to casual gamers as well. People don't understand how great it is to have to click every building to make a unit. How much more beautiful an army moves if you can only select a limited amount at the time. Simply because they never had to do it. Like I said, what if tomorrow creep spread was automatic, would you like it?
yeah, give me more of that stuff. I want that. I also don't want to click a thousand times to build a thousand zerglings, when I would much rather sit there and micro another roach drop, burrow another infestor in my opponents base, contaminate a factory and think about wether I should go mutas right now. I would love to have this game more decision- and "additional micro/multitasking"(like blink and drops; army movement)-based, instead of macro- and "make things do what they should do anyways"(making my units attack, selecting my units and making them move etc.)-micro based.
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.
The BW pros are playing a game where every build is figured out, they've had enough time to practice the game to be near the absolute skillcap, they barely have any holes in their play.
The SC2 pros are playing a game where not nearly every build nor playstyle has been figured out, they haven't had enough time with the game to actually reach anywhere near the skillcap nor tighten up every hole in their gameplay. You constantly see new cheese builds coming from the top, new macro openings and the such which can make even top players lose due to them not knowing the existence of that build.
Once everything like that is figured out in SC2 and the top pros have spent enough time mastering Marine Macro, triple pronged drops and not losing to something as silly as a ling runby while their depot isn't up then you'll see those top players winning consistently vs lesser opponents.
The fact that people expect the very top of the SC2 players to win every single game surprises me, this game is still relatively new and there's alot of things that can still catch the top players off-guard, this isn't because of bad game-design, it's because shit needs to get figured out and pros needs to get better.
Please don't tell me MVP, NesTea and MC have reached the skillcap of SC2. They're damn good but I still see bad marine splitting from MVP time to time (and by bad I mean not perfect as it should be at that lvl). I still see NesTea making bad decisions and not microing perfectly (almost every pro sacrifices their infestors mindlessly every time they try to fungal for example) and I still see MC simply not playing at his best from time to time.
The fact that people point fingers at the GAME SC2 rather than it's players is funny though...
Does this game need to get harder? No, not really. The level it is right now is fine imo, give it time and we'll see how it plays out in a year.
You know, that "BW players had 10 years to figure out..." comment actually means that before BW (and competitive RTS) took hold in Korea, the concepts of macro, micro, timings, expansions and how they affect the game, strategy and army movement etc. weren't known at all. It was built from nothing. That's why Boxer, even in its top form, won't take a game off current game's monsters like Flash. So SC2 is already built on these concepts so its improvement has been much faster.
I'm sorry but I'm following a lot more BW compared to SC2 nowadays and I'm noticing that there are inherent problems with how WOL works. Due to MBS and ease of macro, it is impossible to come back if you lose the main deathball battle. The clumping mechanic and smarter unit ai means a lot more firepower available, and splash damage is all the deal in big battles. Units just die too damn fast before you can do anything (and sometimes you literallly cannot do anything, force fields and fungals) Smartcast removes the skill of good caster use (carpet storms and carpet emps with a few clicks). There are many very poorly designed units that are just a-move (colossus,roach,marauder) Interesting units like Reaver which require and reward good control are absent. Sentry and Blink Stalkers are really the only units that reward good control through forcefield usage and blink micro. Battles end far too quickly to allow an efficient retreat or micro that makes a big difference.
There are subtle but really nice ways in how BW units function. Take Reaver. It hits like a freight train (100 unupgraded and 125 upgraded damage) and with a splash. Yet it is probably the slowest unit in the entire game, so you cannot just take it, a-move and cross your fingers. You need a fast way to transport it to the battle, and Shuttle provides that. Shuttle is fast, but it is prone to be sniped by your enemy, so you need to control it well, because if you fail, you not only lose it but also the precious Reaver inside. Plus the lost opportunity for harrassment and extra firepower for your army. You can take a deathball with Colossi and Stalkers with a few sentries and just a-move across the map, and the only thing you need to do is good forcefields that honestly aren't that hard to execute, and protecting your Colossii, which the stalkers can take care of. But this isn't an interesting interaction between these units, it is just basic stuff, a unit covering another. A Shuttle brings a whole new depth into how you can use a Reaver. SC2 lacks that interaction. A Colossi harrass does nothing but make your opponent laugh, its whole function is to provide firepower in a major engagement.
Warp Prism could be interesting if Warp-in mechanic was exclusive only to Warp Prism's energy area but due to Pylons giving the same effect, they aren't as interesting as they could be. Still, it's a great idea and it deserves an applaud, but it could have been much better.
Get this: There isn't much more if anything left to figure out in WOL. HOTS will bring its own dynamics and then there will be a period of learning, just like it happened last year with WOL. But for WOL, the progress is pretty much over unless Blizzard introduces a major change through a patch. I personally honestly believe the biggest problem of WOL is how Protoss is designed. TvZ being arguably the best matchup in the game closely followed by TvT shows this clearly.
Have to completely disagree with the bolded part except possibly "expansions". I played a lot more age of empires than starcraft back then and I don't really remember what words that were used but I'd say people were generally very aware of concepts like "macro", timings, transitions, unit compositions, "micro" etc almost right away in AoE. Late game build orders and timings weren't very refined but didn't take many weeks before you couldn't win without a somewhat optimized early-mid game(btw you could be in mid game 35 mins in in AoE).
On January 24 2012 19:23 Tobberoth wrote: It means that focusing on learning macro meant more in BW. In SC2, you can at least get to gold/plat just by learning to macro well. In BW, the difference is way bigger. All you really have to learn to macro well as terran in SC2 is to hotkey your CCs, make sure they are building workers. Hotkey all your unit procuding structures on one key, make sure they are constantly producing. Make supply depots. Make bases. It's actually ridiculously easy. In BW, you have to constantly make workers AND go back and set them to mine, on each base. You have to make sure you were building out of all your unit producing structures, which means actually clicking on them, which forced you to use base cameras to have a chance. The bad AI made sure you couldn't just rally them to where you needed them.
All of this together made "learn to macro" a concept far more important than it currently is in SC2. The macro mechanics was a good addition to make this less so, perfect queen usage is ridiculously hard to achieve, chrono boost can be hard to keep useful, and MULEs... are still a ridiculously easy mechanic, but still.
When people ask for auto-mine and such to be removed, they don't do it because they love looking at their workers... they do it because they want the skill cap back, that good players didn't just do good strategies and awesome micro... they did this while constantly macroing in a sense which doesn't exist in SC2.
If macroing is so easy to learn in SC2, then why do pros still not have perfect macro? Why do we see pro players missing scv's, occasionally getting supply blocked, occasionally having idle rax, dropping 5 mules at once, etc.?
Yes, macro in SC2 is way, way easier than BW. But, I tried going back to BW and playing some single player, and quickly found that the lack of auto-mine and MBS actually made the game way less fun to play (coming from someone who played BW casually -- think BGH -- and is a mid-masters player in SC2). I had to focus 100% just to be able to macro off a couple bases, and then found it near impossible just to move my army around the way i wanted to (1click 2click 3click 4click 5click, now all the units are running in random directions, better do it again). If SC2 had come out with BW mechanics, it would just not be as fun to play as it is now.
For those of you asking for more micro-intensive units, I can see where you are coming from. For those of you asking for the removal of MBS, auto-mine, smart-cast, etc, all I can say is: NO!
I also think unless it was for some kind of psychology experiment, polls like the one on OP should be changed. It has 2 options for the game getting harder, and one option for staying same level. How can it be of any use? It's just to mislead whoever sees it and is uneducated to notice the fail.
In reference to the game being harder...I think that having more spellcaster oriented units or more of blink type unit abilities would be a solid way to go. As for making it like brood war (no auto mining, smaller unit grouping etc...) that would be a very wrong way to go and I can definitely see a large portion of the casual SC2 community leaving the game. Why? because at the end of the day, starcraft is a game. It is meant to be fun and realistically, no matter how seriously you may ladder, only a small portion of the starcraft 2 community will ever go pro. The reason I started playing starcraft 2 is because of its accessibility. I like the fact that i'm more worried about strategy and positioning than i am about making sure my worker gets to the correct mineral patch. I still have to keep building workers and pylons and structures, but the fact that i'm not worried about the lack of auto mining is a relief and allows me to enjoy the game much more. I'm not saying that it has to be a completely childish experience, but there has to be a balance. I tried going back to brood war a few times and just realized how annoying it had become after playing sc2 for so long. For those people that miss the brood war mechanics, don't worry, brood war is still there. However, i'm really hoping that blizzard doesn't see the need to let starcraft 2 devolve into it's predecessor.
I think that there is a way to make both parties happy.
Have a game be easy to learn/play but hard to master.
Easy to learn and play means, having a clean, easy to use interface, auto-mining, smart cast, good pathfinding etc. Hard to master, means having nuances like macro abilities, Larva Inject, MULEs, Chronoboost etc.
In my opinion SC2 is almost there. The game is easy to pick up and play by almost anyone due to the interface that doesn't conspire to kill you. However it is hard to master because there are lots of little things you need to learn to be succesful, like injecting corectly every single time, spreading creep, managing Chronoboost, droping mules, and than multi-prong attacks, macro, pre-battle micro and in battle micro, timings etc.
The only thing I think SC2 lacks really is more macro abilities like LI, MULEs and Chrono, that reward players for using them optimaly every single time.
In my opinion dumbing the game down just for the sake of making it harder is not the way to go. BW was hard to master because of the technical limitations of the time, while I still need to give credit where its due, and I do admit BW was one of the greatest RTS of all time, I must repeat that, there are more elegant, more modern and way more rewarding ways to make the game hard at the highest level, but easy to play and pick up at the lower levels.
It is vital however that a game captures all these aspects in the right amount. SC2 could just use a tad more hard to master.
BW was not hard to master only because of the outdated interface, but also because has a very deep gameplay, forces you to think where positioning your lurk, where positioning your mine ecc... , and has units that require insanely good micro, and not only because of the retard pathfinding, but because they are well designed units, instead of boring a-move, like colossus...
i would love some ui enhancements. more information for the players can only result in higher game-play for all.
i also wish there was more information available to players. such as: - separate rally point for workers - how many workers you currently have. - a timer (larva inject/mule style) for chronoboost. - a timer on warpgates (same style as above, in the selection bar). - range being displayed on all spellcasters (some show range, some dont. be consistent). - idle creep tumor button - attack/rally points - a button you can press that drops 1 unit from your army (for ling/baneling micro, and transfering workers to each mineral patch/gas) - even if you can click on your main building and have it show you your income. - resource/unit counting station position above minimap - option of hiding hitpoint bars of full/health allied units - fix ultralisk pathing (imo all massive units should push non-massive allied units out of the way) - stalker warpin size should actually reflect the size of the unit
because these suggestions provide for you to spend mroe APM in your army, i wish that they would remove or change the micro inhibiting things such as: - concussion shells (imo necesary vs zealot, but i think concussion should only affect bio) - fungal should slow, not stun - FF.. not sure how to fix this without ruining game. at the very least, EMP should kill FF. also queen should be morphable (lurker style) into a massive queen. - pylon should not power high ground.
lil off topic, but i think the following abilities would add some interestin depth to the game: - such as allowing medivacs ability to burn energy in order to move faster - allow carriers to attack while moving - allowing creep to spread faster if you have a lair, and even faster than that if you have a hive. - combining upgrades such as: ( overlord speed/drop), (observer/prism speed), (neosteel/bunker upgrade) - allowing terran to upgrade their tech lab/reactor to those things from the campaign (require armory plus cost 50/50 on top of reactor/tech lab cost).
BW is only prohibitively difficult if you want to be competitive. If not, anyone can enjoy it. Even if they remade BW with the easier features of unlimited building selection and auto-mining, there is still so much room for skill that the game will be interesting to watch and play.
I'm a bit of a BW fanboy, and personally prefer BW to SC2, but I can see how SC2 is an improvement in some ways.
Three things that SC2 does better than BW. (imo of course) 1: Simplified macro mechanics. (auto-mining, unlimited unit/building selection) 2: Improved matchmaking. Finding a game of BW with an opponent who is at your skill level can be difficult. iccup doesn't really match you up that well, and everyone there at this point is far too good for a new player to have a chance against. 3: Graphics. These seem to matter to a lot of people. I die a little bit inside every time I read a "I tried to play BW but the graphics made my eyes bleed" comment.
Of these, I think 2 is the most important, although I might be underestimating 3 (I love playing games with older graphics, and often don't care for the new; SC2 is fine, but as an example of old > new I'd claim WarCraft2 > WC3 graphics-wise).
Really, if BW had nice graphics and a good matchmaking system (so you played against people with roughly your mechanical ability) the game would be a lot of fun for many more people. It doesn't matter how hard it is to macro properly, if your opponent is only able to macro at the same level as you. Thus I believe that a BW ladder system similar to SC2's would immediately make BW "playable" for a lot of people.
I guess this might have been off-topic. Sorry ><
TLDR: The difficulty of a game doesn't really matter at a casual level. As long as the opponent can execute things about as well as you can, it should be the strategic (or compositional ><) play that determines the winner. Making the game harder will not detract from the enjoyment of the casual players, as long as the added difficulty isn't seen as unnecessary busywork.
Don't really see the purpose of this thread, it's not like Blizzard will listen to the ideas in this thread. (unless they suddenly decide to care about the community)
It's a really bad idea to suggest removing any of the UI improvements that SC2 has over BW. The problems with SC2 has nothing to do with the UI and making the UI needlessly cumbersome would not improve the game in any way.
The problems with the game in terms of a lack of difficulty (or rather, a lack of room for skilled players to put their skills into use) are entirely due to the design philosophy of the game. Things like "a-move friendly" (Blizzard's own phraseology) late game units should not be in the game, neither should explicit hardcounter units like Immortals or marauders. And, apart from zerg, HOTS seems to be moving very much in the wrong direction in that regard, with units like the Battle Hellion and Tempest.
On January 25 2012 05:49 PatieNce_ wrote: Don't really see the purpose of this thread, it's not like Blizzard will listen to the ideas in this thread. (unless they suddenly decide to care about the community)
What a waste of time.
To follow that up, what types of challenges do you face when trying to balance the needs of the casual player versus the rage of hardcore players like in the progaming community. You had mentioned the macro mechanics being a big one.
DB: Sure that's definitely a big one – it's a place where we feel we can definitely do better but it then does break other systems. You know a great example I love reading on Teamliquid and elsewhere were not so much that you guys were missing clicks – some people said that and I didn't agree with that – but that we were missing the difference between a macro player and a micro player. That we were destroying the sense of style of the player. I could be playing a micro game and you could be playing a macro game with both the same race, and we are still playing a very different game from one another. And when I saw that I was like “Ohh!” I was opening my eyes like “Thanks! THERE IT IS! That's great! That's genius! That's exactly what we need to try to accomplish”.
Why can't everyone have fun trying to get Browder to shout about how genius their ideas are? It sounds like he's implying a team liquid poster got the macro mechanics added so I don't think you can say it's impossible.
Why is discussing starcraft design on a starcraft discussion forum so offensive to you even if blizzard never sees it?
Most of the comments on this thread are some of the dumbest comments I've ever read.
Sure, this game is mechanically easier than BW, but it's for a good fucking reason. If you take most of the mechanical training out of Starcraft, then what's left is strategy, i'd like to see strategy improve more than someone's mechanical ability. One of the reasons why people are finding it easier to watch SC2 is because half the time we aren't oggling at someone's ability to macro. Most of the time we're watching their strategies shape and take place in the game.
THE CONS What are the cons of being easy to play? For the sake of professionals, it is almost heartwrenching. Lets face it, the game has a much higher luck rewarding system than BW, and we have seen many top players fall to lesser ones based on just that. The skill ceiling is not as high (yet, in WoL) which puts starcraft in a bad light when being regarded as a sport. If you don't have to work hard to reach the top, then starcraft as a sport looks a bit... 'iffy'.
Ugh....I see this negative reference to "luck" way too often. Get over it plz. This is not the thing that makes the game "easier". So flowing from this logic, poker is therefore an easy game right? Perhaps they should institute a rule where players play with their cards up to eliminate all the guesswork. So dumb.
On January 25 2012 05:49 PatieNce_ wrote: Don't really see the purpose of this thread, it's not like Blizzard will listen to the ideas in this thread. (unless they suddenly decide to care about the community)
To follow that up, what types of challenges do you face when trying to balance the needs of the casual player versus the rage of hardcore players like in the progaming community. You had mentioned the macro mechanics being a big one.
DB: Sure that's definitely a big one – it's a place where we feel we can definitely do better but it then does break other systems. You know a great example I love reading on Teamliquid and elsewhere were not so much that you guys were missing clicks – some people said that and I didn't agree with that – but that we were missing the difference between a macro player and a micro player. That we were destroying the sense of style of the player. I could be playing a micro game and you could be playing a macro game with both the same race, and we are still playing a very different game from one another. And when I saw that I was like “Ohh!” I was opening my eyes like “Thanks! THERE IT IS! That's great! That's genius! That's exactly what we need to try to accomplish”.
Why can't everyone have fun trying to get Browder to shout about how genius their ideas are? It sounds like he's implying a team liquid poster got the macro mechanics added so I don't think you can say it's impossible.
Why is discussing starcraft design on a starcraft discussion forum so offensive to you even if blizzard never sees it?
Actually made me smile when I read the first part of the last line.. It's not offensive to me at all, I just think it's a waste of time.
& about that interview you linked... "“The benefit you guys bring to the game, the passion and knowledge this community brings has been a huge benefit working on the game. It's had a huge influence and I think it has made the game a lot better."
Guess that's why I'm still playing bw & sc2 has a pile of dust on it nowadays.
Anyways, have fun discussing, I'll just finish my sandwich.
I would not say the ease of use of the game is the reason why it has grown so big in the western scene, I would rather say it was by hype and speculation throughout Beta and release. Also a big reason why the game got big was the custom game system from the previous games where a giant majority of people only played for the custom games, but so far in SC2 the custom game system is atrocious and has a lot that needs to be fixed.
Of course the game should be harder and more skill based the games would be more exciting to myself, and lower level players can play in lower level leagues (what the hell is wrong with that if you don't want to put in time then you will not be as good as someone who puts in more time than you.) I do not care about statistics or results or oh my god a certain few players or whatever always beat foreigners or are in Code S. I believe that the game needs to be redesigned on multiple levels, I do not like watching blob vs. blob matchups I prefer watching something that actually takes abstract strategy and has methodical placement of units and such. I hope HoS and LoV add better design to the aspects the game is currently lacking.
It feels like a bit of a trick question. The difficulty in any multiplayer game (co-op aside) isn't the game itself, but your opponent since everything is a common factor between players and thus cancels out. What Starcraft 2 is lacking for me is the ability to control what's happening to any great extent. Everything's too one dimensional. Just like Day9 said a while ago, Starcraft 2 is like playing with a ball, there's only so much you can do with it until it just becomes a case of how accurately you can throw it.
On January 24 2012 16:22 Koshi wrote: Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
You realize that making it mechanically harder again will simply put even less focus on micro?
Every time I introduce a new friend to this game (usually ones who've played BW), they play it, we do some ladder, they die and eventually quit. There are a few who still play custom games, but the ones with the staying power on the ladder are my friends who bought the game on release. They've just kept up better with the competition. The controls are simply less clunky and a bit more intuitive (hotkeying multiple buildings, not casting 12 storms which do not stack on the spot where you only intended 1 storm to go, etc), but that doesn't make the ladder and the competitive environment any more noob friendly. My noob friends generally get ripped to shreds and demoralized pretty quickly, despite my best efforts to remain uplifting.
I feel too many players are way narcissistic about how good they think they are and they would rather blame something like the perceived "ease" of a game which is supposed to be a level playing field for why so many people are better than them at it. What some perceive as ease, others perceive as having a good interface and being responsive, versus having a dated interface while being awkward. That could simply be a barrier which needs to be overcome. The interface is beautiful... so leave it alone.
On a side note, barring the interface of Star 2, I think HotS could do with a harder brutal campaign with some harder challenges and achievements. It would be interesting to see achieves and portraits for 2500 and 5000 league wins (especially if they pop up as earned on day 1).
The currently proposed Terran units for HotS are pretty "A-clickish" (besides the shredder which is kind of boring and reeks of cheese potential) and I'm not very big on this whole transformers concept they're pushing so hard. At the very least, these changes will lower the perceived skill-cap for Terran and make TvAliens easier.
For Protoss, I'm going to miss the mothership and it's sad to see that Blizzard has just given up on giving the community time to work mutalisks through their system. That tempest looks like an uninteresting muta-killer. It's pretty cool that they're getting the T1000, though. Killing Protoss should be a bit harder come HotS.
Zerg gets a Death Knight. Anybody who's played WoW will tell you, Death Knight is pretty good.
On January 24 2012 16:22 Koshi wrote: Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
You realize that making it mechanically harder again will simply put even less focus on micro?
Not necessarily, it'll just mean that players that can pump out the kind of effective APM the game would be asking for would rise to the top of the pile. At the moment it feels like the game doesn't have near enough focus on mechanics. Like a football game with no running, just ball kicking.
The sad part about this thread is that people think the only way to control multiple groups of units is if you put a cap on the amount of units per control group (there is one, by the way. Try putting 400 zerglings on one control group)
You could play sc2 and have 4 control groups of 15-30 units each for one army, but you rarely see that because it's hard. Because players haven't evolved in this game hardly at all.
On January 25 2012 09:39 Eknoid4 wrote: The sad part about this thread is that people think the only way to control multiple groups of units is if you put a cap on the amount of units per control group (there is one, by the way. Try putting 400 zerglings on one control group)
You could play sc2 and have 4 control groups of 15-30 units each for one army, but you rarely see that because it's hard. Because players haven't evolved in this game hardly at all.
On January 25 2012 06:10 branflakes14 wrote: It feels like a bit of a trick question. The difficulty in any multiplayer game (co-op aside) isn't the game itself, but your opponent since everything is a common factor between players and thus cancels out. What Starcraft 2 is lacking for me is the ability to control what's happening to any great extent. Everything's too one dimensional. Just like Day9 said a while ago, Starcraft 2 is like playing with a ball, there's only so much you can do with it until it just becomes a case of how accurately you can throw it.
Although Starcraft 2's lower skill requirements make it like playing with a ball, there are still many who defend it by arguing that you can always throw a ball more accurately.
On January 25 2012 06:10 branflakes14 wrote: It feels like a bit of a trick question. The difficulty in any multiplayer game (co-op aside) isn't the game itself, but your opponent since everything is a common factor between players and thus cancels out. What Starcraft 2 is lacking for me is the ability to control what's happening to any great extent. Everything's too one dimensional. Just like Day9 said a while ago, Starcraft 2 is like playing with a ball, there's only so much you can do with it until it just becomes a case of how accurately you can throw it.
Although Starcraft 2's lower skill requirements make it like playing with a ball, there are still many who defend it by arguing that you can always throw a ball more accurately.
Honestly... I don't like that comparison. Look at ballsports: Everyone plays with the same rules (no "race" principle), everyone plays on the same pitch (no "map" principle), everyone plays with a ball. Yet I would argue that at least in some ballgames the skilldifference between players/teams does matter at least the same as in in SC2 or BW or frisbee games. Based on those indicators: -) market value differences of players/teams -) winrates (e.g: FC Barcelona had a 79% winrate in 2010/11 in spain - no KO-sytem, which would "artificially" raise the winrate of a team to 100% if they became champion!)
But I get what Day9 tried to argue with it, but I also remember the part in which he said: "right now, it feels like this, but this may change with the metagame" and the other part where he said "in BW this was because the units did not do what you wanted them to do, unless you were babysitting them".
Also because I don't want to be always the guy who just says: "you are looking at the wrong things when you try to find ways to improve SC2", I'd like to give my opinion on what (in my eyes) could be done to further improve SC2 without breaking with fundamental game mechanics, or changing the game to broodwar 2.0:
a) slow down macro: -) larva injects should go down by 25-50% in efficientness -) mules (or Terran mineral units) should be nerfed (not removed: mule/scan duality is awesome) -) If the Nexus gets more powerful in HotS, they should also increase it's cost -) higher warpgate cooldowns and production cooldowns on Terran/Protoss unit production -) more "stepping stones" for low-mid tier units (possibly for small costs): like roach, roach+burrow, roach+speed, roach+burrow movement, or marine, marine+shield, marine+stim, marine+medivac; all without buffing the "endversion" of those units: e.g: mutalisk glaive worm upgrade, sentry guardian shield upgrade, T2 Adrenalin Glands for zerglings (combined with less larva), hellion battleform upgrade
b) Unit buffs/nerfs -) (very) small speednerfs and firespeed nerfs on most units -) (very) small buffs/upgrades for units that are hard to mass
c) strengthen micro abilities: -) more micro abilities like blink and burrow or lift, instead of raw firepower/health/speed/range balancing. -) burrow to T1, if it doesn't break the balance too much; better burrow regeneration for roaches, maybe a similar hydralisk upgrade/ability -) better methods to targetfire. (Maybe something like "shift+a"-attack on a unit forces all your units to fire at the next unit of that type, with all its consequences: overkill, units running towards the enemy line to attack the next such target - but on the other end the reward for being able to make your marauders shoot only stalkers and your marines shoot only zealots while kiting.)
d) other stuff: -) smaller detection radius - single dts/banshees and infestors and few roaches are just not worth the risk right now -) more timing interactions like zealots+1 vs zergling+0, marines with stim vs banelings without speed etc. - a little bit of additional brain tools to fool around with -) maybe more "morphs" for zerg, so that small amounts of units have more value -) better scouting options - if I know better what my opponent is doing, I can be more sure of wether I want to engage/harass or not.
What should that stuff do? a): Mostly to take money out of the game and to give players more time to work with the units they have (more poking and multitasking). Also to make the forming of huge armies a little harder overall. If only 16zerglings pop out at once instead of 20, I can poke more. If only 8drones pop out at once, the time until he can afford units again is longer. If a nexus costs more, expansions are later and Protoss has to work with less money. (same for mules) Stepping stones take out more money as well and force more complex builds, while not influencing the general unit balancing too much. I also think that taking out money takes out reactivness, therefore rewards the player that actively finds ways to trade efficiently.
b) slower units with less firepower means longer combats means more time to reposition. But I'm talking VERY small changes (like 1%). Hard to mass units (Ultralisk, Broodlord, Carrier/BC/Tempest, Mothership, Raven) are a little too limited by passive costs. 20min broodlords if and only if my opponent allows me to play in this way are just too late to really base a concrete gameplan around. But if half of the broodlords at 16min would already be a useful tool, people could experiment with smaller broodlord attacks of less bases. (or just implement an extra raven etc.)
c) I think that speaks for itself. Due to the AI of SC2 being good, the basic stuff doesn't need so much babysitting anymore. Instead there should be more rewarding "babysitting" options... But without just being an extra APM-consuming tool, like "just make hardened shields an activated ability, so you have to spam it". I'm thinking stuff like blink (not just pure combat strenghtening and even in combat somewhat optional: you don't want to blink micro too hard, if you need your blink to chase opponents, and you don't want to blink everything into marauders...). Maybe some "flash out" ability to protect protoss casters, but with the downside of them not being useable for the next X seconds. Maybe some form of viking transformation "abuse" to avoid shots. Maybe an egg upgrade, that makes zerg units hide in highly armored eggs and block movement, when on creep.
d) explanations given
Final note: Of course everything has to be balanced out. But with HotS having a beta and a volatile phase anyways, there would be room for such changes without influencing WoL or professional play.
I kinda feel that the more people 'figure out' the game, the more other people will have to improve their game to counteract that. Though there seems to be no skill cap at the moment, what is lacking in the game (especially coming from me as a mainly toss player) is *variety* of game styles and tactics. Hopefully Hots will give us all more variety and complexity in our strats.
As for people wanting harder mechanics (control groups etc being limited), this just makes for a more stressful task of interfacing with the game. Why 1a, 2a, 3a somewhere when 1a is enough, and lets you get back to macroing etc
On January 25 2012 20:30 redDuke wrote: I kinda feel that the more people 'figure out' the game, the more other people will have to improve their game to counteract that. Though there seems to be no skill cap at the moment, what is lacking in the game (especially coming from me as a mainly toss player) is *variety* of game styles and tactics. Hopefully Hots will give us all more variety and complexity in our strats.
As for people wanting harder mechanics (control groups etc being limited), this just makes for a more stressful task of interfacing with the game. Why 1a, 2a, 3a somewhere when 1a is enough, and lets you get back to macroing etc
I use to 1a2a3a , than I realised If i do that my unit's are dumb enough to get into unfavourable position , now I control each group's before entering in to an engagement which makes me happy in the result as my units do what I intended them to do instead . Solve the 1a2a3a argument .
the fact that the mechanics of sc2 is easier to carry out actually means that the strategy aspect of the game is much more well developed as players can just focus more on strategy aspect, which contribute to highly entertain games.
On January 24 2012 16:22 Koshi wrote: Mechanical it should be a bit harder. Something simple like a 25 food cap on selection and removing MBS would be a great step. This is ofcourse not balanced in WoL but should be something Blizzard should consider for HotS imo.
Why though? I mean if you think of it, how much depth does the the fact that you have to bind and use 3 hotkeys instead of one adds to our strategy game? 1a 2a 3a instead of 1a? I get being nostalgic about BW, but I really see no reason for a change like this. If I have to use 3 keys to create a worker instead of 1... would that make the game better?
-How would you like it if they changed the creep tumor spread system? Instead of having to click the new tumor and place it further, in HotS the creep tumor just automatically on cooldown spawns towards a point that you can decide on in the start and can be manually changed if needed. This feels unnatural not?
The game is far from played perfectly, but simple things like automine, MBS and mass unit selection can be added to the game and the pro's and master players will still be able to execute the same builds, perform at the same level, but will have a bigger reward for their practice.
There is a big misconception that extra "needless" clicks bring out worse timings/gameplay. I am certain that all the pro players who practice +8 hours a day can execute the same timings, build orders or strategies if they didn't have automine/MBS/1a. These "needless" clicks would bring much joy to casual gamers as well. People don't understand how great it is to have to click every building to make a unit. How much more beautiful an army moves if you can only select a limited amount at the time. Simply because they never had to do it. Like I said, what if tomorrow creep spread was automatic, would you like it?
Thats a ridiculous comparison though. You could literally just go down a long list of features to streamline. Blizzard chose a couple of mechanics that were limited by the engine of BW, and fixed/'made them easier.' They didn't go any further to keep the game at their choice of difficulty level. It's a line drawn in the sand. It's not some oversight where they didn't realize fixing those features would make the game easier, it was completely intentional.
And like it was mentioned before: They're trying to push some more units to task spare APM with, replacing the APM that went to the harder mechanics to benefit control and decision making. Beyond that, it's really whether or not you'd prefer the difficulty in mechanics. I don't see why people looking for hard mechanics can't play BW. SC2 can be difficult with out them.
I'm always baffled by suggestions of intentionally screwing over the UI to make the game "harder". That's not making a game harder, that's just bad design that results in a "harder" game as side effect.
I still remember when WC3 RoC got out and everyone were amazed about the automine, multiple rack selection and smartcasting.
I still don't see the point about the fact that in SC2 the UI is better than in BW.
It is like grumbling about the new laser printers when only good administratives could type pages so fast on the old machines... Come on, the future is now!
At OP. If making SC2 harder you mean more tactical deep and unit composition, then I agree. But increasing complexity of the tech tree and downgrading the UI is NOT the way.
BTW, at everyone bitching about the "ball syndrome" I would like to say that you needed micro in BW to avoid the "conga line" and do a proper spread. Now in SC2 you need micro also to avoid the "ball syndrome" and do a proper concave to avoid AoE and get better fire placement.
Making the game harder by changing the ui will not have the results people are expecting. In fact, making the game easier will probably lead to more positive results. If players had to spend less time dealing with macro and fighting the UI then we will see better games. Fans want to see banelings explode, they do not want to see MVP micro his workers on his mineral patch. Give the players more opportunity to micro and the games will be better.
It will also allow more players to compete near the top level which will create a more dynamic scene. And if you are worried that this will prevent players from standing out at the top then you can look at a Warcraft III, a game that this community constantly criticizes for being too easy, and you will see that their top level guys were always at the top and for many years.
On January 25 2012 22:23 Eviscerador wrote: I still remember when WC3 RoC got out and everyone were amazed about the automine, multiple rack selection and smartcasting.
I still don't see the point about the fact that in SC2 the UI is better than in BW.
It is like grumbling about the new laser printers when only good administratives could type pages so fast on the old machines... Come on, the future is now!
At OP. If making SC2 harder you mean more tactical deep and unit composition, then I agree. But increasing complexity of the tech tree and downgrading the UI is NOT the way.
BTW, at everyone bitching about the "ball syndrome" I would like to say that you needed micro in BW to avoid the "conga line" and do a proper spread. Now in SC2 you need micro also to avoid the "ball syndrome" and do a proper concave to avoid AoE and get better fire placement.
^ I couldn't agree more. People keep complaining about units clumping up AND that the mechanics are too easy... "Unlimited" unit selection is NOT the problem. The problem is players not reaching the full potential that they could have with better unit positions and groups.
I think SC2 has a long way to go before we can say it's "too easy"
Yes, the game needs to be harder, but adding stupid/impaired/outdated mechanics (or rather, removing good ones) like automine, smartcasting, auto-clustering, unlimited unit selection, etc is not the way to go about it. You don't need to impair the mechanical features of a game to make it hard, that just makes it frustrating.
More spells and micro intensive units and abilities are what we need. Browder always talks about "removing food from the deathballs" with units like the new Protoss Oracle, the new zerg Viper, Warp Prisms, etc and I'm glad that that's the direction HOTS looks like it's going in.
I mean, look at a game like WC3 that had all of the above mechanical features but still had a huge, huge micro skill-ceiling, with every unit and hero having multiple spells, etc. Obviously we don't want SC2 to reach that kind of variation (the sheer amount of units that you can field in SC2 would just reach clusterfuck proportions if that were the case) but a decent amount more would be nice. And we need to slowly add that on, otherwise we risk breaking the game (which is what Blizzard is doing.)
So if you ask me, SC2 is right on track in the grand scheme of things.
On January 25 2012 22:23 Eviscerador wrote: I still remember when WC3 RoC got out and everyone were amazed about the automine, multiple rack selection and smartcasting.
I still don't see the point about the fact that in SC2 the UI is better than in BW.
It is like grumbling about the new laser printers when only good administratives could type pages so fast on the old machines... Come on, the future is now!
At OP. If making SC2 harder you mean more tactical deep and unit composition, then I agree. But increasing complexity of the tech tree and downgrading the UI is NOT the way.
BTW, at everyone bitching about the "ball syndrome" I would like to say that you needed micro in BW to avoid the "conga line" and do a proper spread. Now in SC2 you need micro also to avoid the "ball syndrome" and do a proper concave to avoid AoE and get better fire placement.
^ I couldn't agree more. People keep complaining about units clumping up AND that the mechanics are too easy... "Unlimited" unit selection is NOT the problem. The problem is players not reaching the full potential that they could have with better unit positions and groups.
I think SC2 has a long way to go before we can say it's "too easy"
The reason players aren't doing it is because there isn't any incentive. The deatballs have so high firepower that if you stop and try to split in the middle of a battle (banelings v. marines excluded as they are a melee unit) or try to reposition a split second, you will lose 20% of your army without dealing any damage to the other side. This is enough to turn the tables against you and you will lose that battle unless you are heavily ahead in upgrades or your units are rock whereas his are scissors. And as we all know, if you lose a main battle in SC2, that's it, game over, there is no comeback unless your opponent is retarded. Furthermore, using multiple control groups to control a ball does not result as effective and efficient firepower which is needed in the battles to crush the opponent. Even if it did, what incentive is there to split a colo-stalker deathball into three sub groups? If you send them seperately they will lose laughably to your opponent's army, as they are supposed to work together in group.
Don't make it look like the players are idiots and they don't know that they can use multiple hotkeys. The problem is, there is no incentive. Units in SC2 most of the times at least in battles, can fight with just 1-a and do well enough, because they are that smart. This is at least true for Protoss, I have been following about only TvZs and TvTs for past few months in SC2, as I can't stand watching PvPs, ZvZs(it isn't that great in BW tho, but at least good muta-scourge micro can make a player shine) PvTs or PvZs. Honestly I think the biggest problem of this game is Protoss and how terribly it was designed.
On January 25 2012 22:23 Eviscerador wrote: I still remember when WC3 RoC got out and everyone were amazed about the automine, multiple rack selection and smartcasting.
I still don't see the point about the fact that in SC2 the UI is better than in BW.
It is like grumbling about the new laser printers when only good administratives could type pages so fast on the old machines... Come on, the future is now!
At OP. If making SC2 harder you mean more tactical deep and unit composition, then I agree. But increasing complexity of the tech tree and downgrading the UI is NOT the way.
BTW, at everyone bitching about the "ball syndrome" I would like to say that you needed micro in BW to avoid the "conga line" and do a proper spread. Now in SC2 you need micro also to avoid the "ball syndrome" and do a proper concave to avoid AoE and get better fire placement.
^ I couldn't agree more. People keep complaining about units clumping up AND that the mechanics are too easy... "Unlimited" unit selection is NOT the problem. The problem is players not reaching the full potential that they could have with better unit positions and groups.
I think SC2 has a long way to go before we can say it's "too easy"
The reason players aren't doing it is because there isn't any incentive. The deatballs have so high firepower that if you stop and try to split in the middle of a battle (banelings v. marines excluded as they are a melee unit) or try to reposition a split second, you will lose 20% of your army without dealing any damage to the other side. This is enough to turn the tables against you and you will lose that battle unless you are heavily ahead in upgrades or your units are rock whereas his are scissors. And as we all know, if you lose a main battle in SC2, that's it, game over, there is no comeback unless your opponent is retarded. Furthermore, using multiple control groups to control a ball does not result as effective and efficient firepower which is needed in the battles to crush the opponent. Even if it did, what incentive is there to split a colo-stalker deathball into three sub groups? If you send them seperately they will lose laughably to your opponent's army, as they are supposed to work together in group.
Don't make it look like the players are idiots and they don't know that they can use multiple hotkeys. The problem is, there is no incentive. Units in SC2 most of the times at least in battles, can fight with just 1-a and do well enough, because they are that smart. This is at least true for Protoss, I have been following about only TvZs and TvTs for past few months in SC2, as I can't stand watching PvPs, ZvZs(it isn't that great in BW tho, but at least good muta-scourge micro can make a player shine) PvTs or PvZs. Honestly I think the biggest problem of this game is Protoss and how terribly it was designed.
Yeah. There is no way to move units in between shots. You lose exactly 20% army with this move! Like Zerglings and banelings are completly useless against Protoss, Infestors overall unplayable, warp prisms useless and 1 Thor counters 50mutalisks.
I'm just glad that at least in SC2 I play a race that can evolve, as it seems humans aren't...
It should be a lot easier to learn, and a lot harder to master.
Im a crappy silver/gold casual player but my total noob friends who bought it last month didn't have any chance beating me 3 vs 1.... after playing for like a week
The next days they played a lot of ladder in bronze league, but of course they really sucked still. They took gas before barracks at 8 scvs, stuff you don't even see in bronze league anymore. Because even people there know their builds and how to expand etc after a year.
So beating the campain and a little laddering , after like 100/100 losses they gave up on sc2. If there was a league below bronze where they would have won like 1 in 10 they might actually be a little more encouraged to stay, but now they thought, well I tried but I will never learn this and quit. And that's a bit of a shame.
They aren't bad gamers or anything, pretty sure if they practiced a few months they would be my skill level at least. But for a total noob, a total beginner, even bronze leauge seems to be too hard right now. Because the total skill level increased a lot, bronze now is what silver was a year ago
Maybe there should be a league for new accounts only and if you're still in it after for example a month or 50 games you are automaticly promoted to bronze.
This game is NOT easy, god damn. People really need to look at it from the point of view of all competitive video games. Starcraft 2 has a very steep learning curve compared to any game out there (except brood war of course), hence why all the big name, successful players have a wealth of experience in other competitive RTS be it WC3 or BW. And why we don't see new, successful players come up at all really. Many people I know who try and play SC2 online are put off because they find it difficult to progress up the leagues.
The problem is people who have played Brood War for many years play SC2 and think 'damn this is easy', because BW is undoubtedly one of the hardest video games ever. But think of it from the position of someone who starts playing who hasn't played competitive RTS at a high level for 6+ years, and then ask if its an easy game.
That's just my opinion, being someone who didn't play much competitive RTS before SC2. It would be interesting to hear what pro players think of this topic.
SC2 is difficult in a different way. BW was just really hard to execute and since SC2 is much easier to execute you have to rely on much different strategies and tactics in order to win. Now does this difference make either game harder than the other, well of course. BW is going to be harder no matter what anyone says about SC2 it's just a fact.
Since I chose "Yes the game should continue to become harder" I would like to be able to hit more buttons and need to use my APM rather than just spamming. There should be a higher skill cap just to execute the game. I mean right now the only thing that you have to do to macro decent is not to get supply blocked. With MBS and control groups not being limited to 12 it really isn't that hard to macro (physically).
I do like how many people play the game (speaking as a person who has played through games from their height to when they die) it really helps grow the eSports scene which I really like to see. But I think that making it a bit tougher than it is now so we can really start to see a gap between the A players and the A+ players. I think that it is just a matter of increasing the difficulty to execute.
I would also like people to watch the IdrA interview on SK gaming. Has a lot of good insight on this topic in part 2 and 3. + Show Spoiler +
People people! if you ever think the game is too hard, please remember one thing!
There are many leagues. U can just drop down to a lower league and dominate about 50% of your games. So, I say: bring on HoTS and make it hard. There is still ways to have fun and not get stressed to the point that you rage like a mother fuker or that your fingers get jittery and shakey after each game.
The point is that no matter how hard the game is, MMR is the great equalizer. The game is kind of like golf. There are handicpas. See?
On January 26 2012 03:10 longtang wrote: People people! if you ever think the game is too hard, please remember one thing!
There are many leagues. U can just drop down to a lower league and dominate about 50% of your games. So, I say: bring on HoTS and make it hard. There is still ways to have fun and not get stressed to the point that you rage like a mother fuker or that your fingers get jittery and shakey after each game.
The point is that no matter how hard the game is, MMR is the great equalizer. The game is kind of like golf. There are handicpas. See?
As much as what you write here is true, it will not help the game's growth. Making the game harder will make more players leave the game and discourage more players from entering the scene.
On January 25 2012 21:04 littlemozart7 wrote: the fact that the mechanics of sc2 is easier to carry out actually means that the strategy aspect of the game is much more well developed as players can just focus more on strategy aspect, which contribute to highly entertain games.
In an ideal world yes, but I'm yet to see anyone do anything in Starcraft 2 that I haven't seen done better in Brood War.
On January 25 2012 21:04 littlemozart7 wrote: the fact that the mechanics of sc2 is easier to carry out actually means that the strategy aspect of the game is much more well developed as players can just focus more on strategy aspect, which contribute to highly entertain games.
In an ideal world yes, but I'm yet to see anyone do anything in Starcraft 2 that I haven't seen done better in Brood War.
That's because the game has had over a decade to develop a metagame that truly defines each match up.
On January 25 2012 21:04 littlemozart7 wrote: the fact that the mechanics of sc2 is easier to carry out actually means that the strategy aspect of the game is much more well developed as players can just focus more on strategy aspect, which contribute to highly entertain games.
In an ideal world yes, but I'm yet to see anyone do anything in Starcraft 2 that I haven't seen done better in Brood War.
That's because the game has had over a decade to develop a metagame that truly defines each match up.
SC2 will get there in time.
not to mention that he will never ever see a Starcraft 2 Marine in BW
On January 25 2012 21:04 littlemozart7 wrote: the fact that the mechanics of sc2 is easier to carry out actually means that the strategy aspect of the game is much more well developed as players can just focus more on strategy aspect, which contribute to highly entertain games.
In an ideal world yes, but I'm yet to see anyone do anything in Starcraft 2 that I haven't seen done better in Brood War.
So you think BW is a better, more developed game. This is good, since it has been around for 10 years, which is 9 years longer that SC2. I don't think that SC2 can be expected to surpass BW at launch or within a year. Even if it was mechanically identical to BW, SC2 would take years to become as developed and complex.
To be frank, I have little interest in playing BW. Although I respect the skill it takes to play and enjoy seeing the game played, I have no interest in devoting the time it would take to become good at it. To be honest, I do not even have the time to play SC2 right now. Playing a more mechanically challenging game would only mean a greater barrerier of entry before I could start enjoying the game. I am sure a few BW fans would say that there is enjoyment in the lowest level of play, but I am not one of those people.
It doesn't mean I don't love to hear stories of the BW days of old or seeing the crazy micro tricks that players could pull off. That is all interesting, but not something I am going to work on when I get home from a 10 hour work day.
About this topic of deathballs being thrown at each other and games being boring and decided in one big battle... Well, here's my viewpoint of the terran match-ups since its what I play:
TvT: Obviously not a fight of deathball against another. Positional play is hugely important with tanks, you have a ton of different playstyles for different stages of the game (bio, bio/tank, mech, sky terran), games are often filled with multi-tasking and battles happening all around the map. Interestingly enough every single terran unit has its uses in this match-up, which I consider a testament of good design. Its about as interesting as a mirror match gets.
TvZ: If you would poll the entire SC2 playerbase on what their favorite match-up to watch is, TvZ would be a clear winner. Constant aggression and unit trading from start to finish, multi-tasking, harassing and counter-harassing. Its a match-up that almost rivals those of BW and truly rewards the most skilled players. With HOTS I can only see it get more interesting since the new zerg units seem perfectly designed to fight terran armies while being very tactical in nature.
TvP: Do I need to say anything?
To me, the deathball problem doesnt come from units clumping up. It comes from one race being badly designed and everything about it revolving to abuse this kind of play. Protoss is fundamentally flawed and I doubt it will get fixed until their core units (especially the colossus) undergo some heavy rebalancing.
On January 26 2012 03:49 Bagi wrote: About this topic of deathballs being thrown at each other and games being boring and decided in one big battle... Well, here's my viewpoint of the terran match-ups since its what I play:
TvT: Obviously not a fight of deathball against another. Positional play is hugely important with tanks, you have a ton of different playstyles for different stages of the game (bio, bio/tank, mech, sky terran), games are often filled with multi-tasking and battles happening all around the map. Interestingly enough every single terran unit has its uses in this match-up, which I consider a testament of good design. Its about as interesting as a mirror match gets.
TvZ: If you would poll the entire SC2 playerbase on what their favorite match-up to watch is, TvZ would be a clear winner. Constant aggression and unit trading from start to finish, multi-tasking, harassing and counter-harassing. Its a match-up that almost rivals those of BW and truly rewards the most skilled players. With HOTS I can only see it get more interesting since the new zerg units seem perfectly designed to fight terran armies while being very tactical in nature.
TvP: Do I need to say anything?
To me, the deathball problem doesnt come from units clumping up. It comes from one race being badly designed and everything about it revolving to abuse this kind of play. Protoss is fundamentally flawed and I doubt it will get fixed until their core units (especially the colossus) undergo some heavy rebalancing.
I don't understand why the poll option is called "continue to become harder". That implies that it is already becoming harder right now but I don't really see that happening.
On January 26 2012 03:49 Bagi wrote: About this topic of deathballs being thrown at each other and games being boring and decided in one big battle... Well, here's my viewpoint of the terran match-ups since its what I play:
TvT: Obviously not a fight of deathball against another. Positional play is hugely important with tanks, you have a ton of different playstyles for different stages of the game (bio, bio/tank, mech, sky terran), games are often filled with multi-tasking and battles happening all around the map. Interestingly enough every single terran unit has its uses in this match-up, which I consider a testament of good design. Its about as interesting as a mirror match gets.
TvZ: If you would poll the entire SC2 playerbase on what their favorite match-up to watch is, TvZ would be a clear winner. Constant aggression and unit trading from start to finish, multi-tasking, harassing and counter-harassing. Its a match-up that almost rivals those of BW and truly rewards the most skilled players. With HOTS I can only see it get more interesting since the new zerg units seem perfectly designed to fight terran armies while being very tactical in nature.
TvP: Do I need to say anything?
To me, the deathball problem doesnt come from units clumping up. It comes from one race being badly designed and everything about it revolving to abuse this kind of play. Protoss is fundamentally flawed and I doubt it will get fixed until their core units (especially the colossus) undergo some heavy rebalancing.
Nexus recall, possibly a better air alternative (stronger AtA with the Tempest, stronger and very versatile harass with the Oracle). I think Blizzard is looking heavily into this!
On January 26 2012 02:42 peekn wrote: SC2 is difficult in a different way. BW was just really hard to execute and since SC2 is much easier to execute you have to rely on much different strategies and tactics in order to win.
On January 26 2012 03:59 Cinim wrote: Most ignorant thread ever. BW not a game for the crowd?? everyone in korea have watched bw matches, and like 5 % of them actually play the game
that is because bw is free. sc2 is $50 or $60. ok? would u play a game that is free and u can learn and follow on tv or do u want to spend $$$?
I suppose its not a day that ends in "y" if someone isn't making a BW to SC2 comparison. Yes they are different. Yes they are better and worse for different reasons. Yes people play both. Why in the hell do people keep making threads and talking about it? The only thing they do is allow those who think BW is vastly superior to SC2 to beat off to their 10 years to play a game shouting "I built SCVs before it was cool".
On January 26 2012 03:10 longtang wrote: People people! if you ever think the game is too hard, please remember one thing!
There are many leagues. U can just drop down to a lower league and dominate about 50% of your games. So, I say: bring on HoTS and make it hard. There is still ways to have fun and not get stressed to the point that you rage like a mother fuker or that your fingers get jittery and shakey after each game.
The point is that no matter how hard the game is, MMR is the great equalizer. The game is kind of like golf. There are handicpas. See?
As much as what you write here is true, it will not help the game's growth. Making the game harder will make more players leave the game and discourage more players from entering the scene.
ps: the way you power down to a lower level is just by playing a good number of random race. And u leave anytime u roll the random dice and do not get the right race that is ur true race. So, say u like toss, then u play random and everytime u get toss, you will dominate. And u just leave the other two times. That ensures that you don't get too high in mmr, so that the complexity will not interfere with your enjoyment of the game. Also, playing random fuks with the other guys' mind in that he will try to scout you earlier, thereby hurting his econ. And if he is the kind of mother fuker who has three different builds for each match up, he will be delayed.
1. Effective zoning, that doesn't require your entire army.
2. Army interaction (battles) being more than two effective bean bag chairs being thrown at eachother. Sure there's a few units to micro here and there (spells), but in reality they serve to cancel eachother out generally, and more micro won't remotely carry a battle as much as just...having more stuff than the other guy; in effect all battles boil down to who has more shit (and to a degree, who fucked up and stood in a storm). I wish you could have some units and out micro a lot of units and then come out on top, or at least even. Currently that really just doesn't happen.
On January 25 2012 05:43 Blacklizard wrote: Need micro/unit control more rewarding please.
Then play Terran xD. No but seriously, I just think not all the micro tricks have been figured out for protoss in sc2 but if you're a zerg player then I agree, more micro is needed for that race.
On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote: Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
The vast majority of people that play the game can't play for 12 hours per day like pros. If features like that were kept from BW into Sc2, this game would be no where near as popular as it is not. Personally the difficulty doesn't give me much problem, it's more memory for me.
idk how people can say this game is too easy. It is sooo fast and the units are sooo good that you can lose the game in a matter of seconds. Just look to the ling bane wars of ZvZ, or the clutch ff's in a forge fast expand defense, or defending against terran multi-pronged drops, only someone who has never tried to do these things could call them too easy.
As for deathball play, i feel that we are starting to get out of the standard a-move style and into more micro intensive engagements like emp/templar standoffs, and zerg flanks as people are getting better. We can also hope that as players become more strategic with counterattacks we will see the days of box everything and go fade, and have a game more focused on map position and tactical attacks.
Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
Ok, if people cannot understand why automining was added and why Blizzard would never relase a game without it, I am at a loss. SC2 is a mass market, multi million dollar game, they cannot release it and have it appears significantly dated. People on TL need to remember that the majority(like everyone I know) of SC2 owners never play 1v1. I understand people want the game to be difficult, but they have to understand that this is a mass market game. It is not like there are not things that players can do to make their mining more efficent in SC2. The AI is not perfect and a player can make sure the works are mining more efficently through micro.
The game is what the game is what the game is. It's only going to be as hard as people make it. If you beat people by a-clicking, it's not the game's fault, it's your opponent's for not playing better. The best player will micro every unit perfectly, have perfect timing, perfect macro, awesome multitasking etc. If you aren't doing everything perfectly, you aren't doing all you can and the game is still hard. The devil is in the details----
Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
Ok, if people cannot understand why automining was added and why Blizzard would never relase a game without it, I am at a loss. SC2 is a mass market, multi million dollar game, they cannot release it and have it appears significantly dated. People on TL need to remember that the majority(like everyone I know) of SC2 owners never play 1v1. I understand people want the game to be difficult, but they have to understand that this is a mass market game. It is not like there are not things that players can do to make their mining more efficent in SC2. The AI is not perfect and a player can make sure the works are mining more efficently through micro.
Agreed, but I'd like to add (as others pointed out in this thread) that despite the UI improvements implemented in SC2, the skill ceiling has not been reached. In fact, it's not even close to being reached! So there is no point intentionally making SC2 harder mechanically. It doesn't get us anything in the pro-scene.
Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here.
On January 25 2012 05:43 Blacklizard wrote: Need micro/unit control more rewarding please.
Then play Terran xD. No but seriously, I just think not all the micro tricks have been figured out for protoss in sc2 but if you're a zerg player then I agree, more micro is needed for that race.
All the races need more micro control potential, but especially zerg.
On January 25 2012 05:43 Blacklizard wrote: Need micro/unit control more rewarding please.
Then play Terran xD. No but seriously, I just think not all the micro tricks have been figured out for protoss in sc2 but if you're a zerg player then I agree, more micro is needed for that race.
All the races need more micro control potential, but especially zerg.
The problem is Zerg player don't feel the need to do so, even though they are capable to do so.
For example, the roach. There was a hack that automatically burrow the roach when its hp is lower than 50%, Somebody posted a clip of that hack, and when 2 sides clashed, the zerg almost didn't lose anything because burrowed roach doesn't have attack priority, and they got heal real fast. Moreover, because they don't get shot because they don't have priority, they can move underground and get close to the opponents. The point is, roach is microable, in a way, it's just like stalker maybe even greater, but right now zerg players prefer to ram their roaches into other ball, and it still works fine.
Same case with infestors, Zerg players don't really burrow-move them that much, and keep clumping them up together. Take protoss players for example, some players like Hero spread their HTs, station HTs like a zone control unit, you can do that with infestor too, except infestor is more safer because it has burrow so it doesn't die too fast when we don't pay attention. See, the concept is there, the execution has been done from other races, but Zerg players still prefer to clump up infestors because they are obsessed with the concept "fungal other people to death". How many time you see a HT storm a group of units to death? Almost never, it lowers hp enough so that other units can clean them up.
What is this stupid bullshit about people being unable to play BW... US/EU Bnet back in the day was huge and very active... yet you're acting like it was some obscure game? There's people playing with 60 APM, total casual players to this day on there.
[B]On January 27 2012 03:02 c0ldfusion wrote:[/B a] Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here.
Why do people keep bringing up the 'skill ceiling' without even a mention of it? How could it ever be reached in a real time strategy? You could always micro slightly better in even the most simplistic RTS. Just because you cannot play the game perfectly does not mean it could not be better to play, people have more of a problem with boring a-move units with no micro potential than they do UI changes.
On January 27 2012 04:02 canikizu wrote: obsessed with the concept "fungal other people to death". How many time you see a HT storm a group of units to death? Almost never, it lowers hp enough so that other units can clean them up.
Because fungal is guaranteed damage and storm is not? Chain fungal is guaranteed kill while storm is avoidable? That's how they are meant to be used. Fungal growth doesn't zone because it's not avoidable, if anything, if your units get fungaled you a+move forward even harder because if even a couple of your units get through, the infestors have to retreat.
I think that once people start overcoming the deathball issue by making army splitting a defining part of their play will we see a bigger divide between the pros and the joes. In that scenario, SC2's easier army AI can contribute to this because you can identify the better player by how well split/positioned his army is vs the guy who just wants to be lazy and keep everything clumped in a ball. We're seeing this a bit here and there, so I think it just needs more time to become a regular thing.
On January 23 2012 21:12 DeepBlu2 wrote: Adding things like automine and smartcast significantly lower the skillcap, yet don't make the game more fun, so I can't understand why they would add it.
Auto mine totally makes the game more fun. You can focus on making interesting decisions. Instead of doing the same thing 80 times a game. Something that is not a decision. Something you don't think about, you just have to do it. WTF are you talking about? I think the game should have more micro things to make it a little harder. More interesting decisions to make. That's what makes it fun.
This is a valid point. I never thought of it like that. Still I love all the things that SC2 does for me automatically.
On January 27 2012 04:41 infinity2k9 wrote: What is this stupid bullshit about people being unable to play BW... US/EU Bnet back in the day was huge and very active... yet you're acting like it was some obscure game? There's people playing with 60 APM, total casual players to this day on there.
[B]On January 27 2012 03:02 c0ldfusion wrote:[/B a] Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here.
Why do people keep bringing up the 'skill ceiling' without even a mention of it? How could it ever be reached in a real time strategy? You could always micro slightly better in even the most simplistic RTS. Just because you cannot play the game perfectly does not mean it could not be better to play, people have more of a problem with boring a-move units with no micro potential than they do UI changes.
So you agree with me? Since "boring a-move" units = game design and not UI...
I'd also add to my point earlier regarding the skill ceiling. Letting players select infinite number of units, thereby creating a ball formation (given the current pathing AI) is not always optimal. Pros have to manually split their army to minimize splash damage or to flank for example. This isn't just microing "slighly better". Army control on this level can deteremine the outcome of games.
I think at tournaments there should be a small man in every booth trying to stab the progamers with sharp pointy sticks just to give them an extra apm task to overcome.
This isn't the right question to be asking. What we want is "in what other dimension can we distinguish professional players?"
BW's difficult macro mechanics are outdated and should not be put back into any game ever, but they served a purpose by making macro really, really hard. You could have players with better and worse macro, and they could still be pros. You could compensate for worse micro with better macro. There was a complex mix of macro, micro and decision-making that synthesized to some degree into player strength.
For better or for worse, the "macro" part of that mix has mostly dropped out of SC2. Nobody uses mules or injects or chrono boosts perfectly, but the difference between using them adequately and perfectly is small and everyone is adequate to about the same degree. Running someone over with units in SC2 usually comes from winning an engagement decisively and then riding the advantage, as opposed to any macro difference. The converse scenario, where someone would lose an engagement (or even several) and run the opponent over with units anyway, was a not-uncommon occurrence in BW between macro-mismatched players and it happens almost never in SC2.
This is not a bad thing, and it doesn't make BW or SC2 better or worse than each other. It's a natural outflow of making the macro mechanics easier, which is something that needed to happen. I'm a big BW fan and don't play it because it's too hard. I'm also an SC2 fan and I do play it because it's easy.
Okay, so macro's out as a dimension of skill for pros. That leaves micro and decision-making. Still good, still fun to watch, but a little thin, and I think topics like this grow from that realization. So what do we replace macro with? It's telling that most of the suggestions in this thread are "more micro". I can't think of anything better, to be honest, and yet reducing SC2 to a game of whoever has better micro wins seems like a solution that would cut off some of the potential of what SC2 could be.
So that's the real question. Find something that specifically isn't micro or decision-making that players can be differing levels of good at. It's probably going to have be something entirely new to the genre of RTS, but that isn't a bad thing in the least.
On January 27 2012 04:41 infinity2k9 wrote: What is this stupid bullshit about people being unable to play BW... US/EU Bnet back in the day was huge and very active... yet you're acting like it was some obscure game? There's people playing with 60 APM, total casual players to this day on there.
[B]On January 27 2012 03:02 c0ldfusion wrote:[/B a] Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here.
Why do people keep bringing up the 'skill ceiling' without even a mention of it? How could it ever be reached in a real time strategy? You could always micro slightly better in even the most simplistic RTS. Just because you cannot play the game perfectly does not mean it could not be better to play, people have more of a problem with boring a-move units with no micro potential than they do UI changes.
So you agree with me? Since "boring a-move" units = game design and not UI...
I'd also add to my point earlier regarding the skill ceiling. Letting players select infinite number of units, thereby creating a ball formation (given the current pathing AI) is not always optimal. Pros have to manually split their army to minimize splash damage or to flank for example. This isn't just microing "slighly better". Army control on this level can deteremine the outcome of games.
Allowing infinite control is fine but then the unit micro was simplified mostly too. You realize you split your army in BW right, this is nothing new or amazing. It's fundamental tactics that you have to do. The funny thing about SC2 is because of the speed that the engagements take place you have infact way less actual actions/time devoted to the battle micro.. a fight in BW might last like 40 seconds of back and forth in some cases. Ignoring even the UI, unit design and everything else; you simply get more micro in that time than the average SC2 engagement because of the speed and dps.
Not sure about harder. Top pros in SC2 still need 300+ apm to win so it's pretty hard to do everything right which none do yet. What I'd like is double every units hit points so battles had more micro and wernt over in 5 seconds.
On January 27 2012 04:41 infinity2k9 wrote: What is this stupid bullshit about people being unable to play BW... US/EU Bnet back in the day was huge and very active... yet you're acting like it was some obscure game? There's people playing with 60 APM, total casual players to this day on there.
[B]On January 27 2012 03:02 c0ldfusion wrote:[/B a] Bottom line - there are some changes to the game design and some balance tweaks to go with them that need to be added in HotS. But, the UI and fundamental mechanics of the game are not the problem here.
Why do people keep bringing up the 'skill ceiling' without even a mention of it? How could it ever be reached in a real time strategy? You could always micro slightly better in even the most simplistic RTS. Just because you cannot play the game perfectly does not mean it could not be better to play, people have more of a problem with boring a-move units with no micro potential than they do UI changes.
So you agree with me? Since "boring a-move" units = game design and not UI...
I'd also add to my point earlier regarding the skill ceiling. Letting players select infinite number of units, thereby creating a ball formation (given the current pathing AI) is not always optimal. Pros have to manually split their army to minimize splash damage or to flank for example. This isn't just microing "slighly better". Army control on this level can deteremine the outcome of games.
Allowing infinite control is fine but then the unit micro was simplified mostly too. You realize you split your army in BW right, this is nothing new or amazing. It's fundamental tactics that you have to do. The funny thing about SC2 is because of the speed that the engagements take place you have infact way less actual actions/time devoted to the battle micro.. a fight in BW might last like 40 seconds of back and forth in some cases. Ignoring even the UI, unit design and everything else; you simply get more micro in that time than the average SC2 engagement because of the speed and dps.
OK, because people keep bringing it up and mixing it up: Micro was not simplified by unit design. The AI and the pathing and the clumping, are the reasons why boring a-move units like hydralisks, dragoons, reavers and firebats have so much micropotential in BW, but sameconcept units like the hydralisk, the (burrowless) roach, the (blinkless) stalker and the colossus have not in SC2. The units themselves generally offer more micropotential in SC2 due to the amount of abilities (from blink to explode and charge, YOU have the choice to use them).
Battles are shorter because due to clumping, autosurround and correct movement there are simply more units actually attacking in a big battle. Just compare the dps/health of BW and SC2. The relation in BW was greater (reaver>colossus, dragoon>stalker... in dps, while bio without the marauder and zerg without the roach have less health etc...). --> therefore the battles in BW should be shorter, if it weren't for so few units actually being involved in a battle, due to line movement etc. (and also because due to the game being different in so many aspects and the game being more developed, the metagame is completly different--> more smaller engagements)
I dont understand why making the game harder would be bad for it as an esport. People play basketball, soccer, football, etc. all the time even if theyre not anywhere near as good as guys like Kobe, Rooney, or Brady.
I don't think SC2 is more successful than BW because of the simplicity, I strongly disagree. My personal opinion is that BW was just never successful in the west because of availability of streams, commentary etc., and later on because of outdated looks. Everyone who liked video games kind of knew the scene exists and is great, but very few people actually looked closer into it to decide whether or not they like it, because there was this huge barrier of getting information without investing a lot of time.
BW from my point of view really only got games with good commentating in like 2008 when Tasteless started with GomTV, and sadly it was only 3 (?) seasons long. I wasn't a huge part of the scene in any way and overall I'm more one of these SC2 kids. I think if you could bring the enthusiasm of SC2 today to the audience, let them watch some Tasteless commentated pro BW matches and tell them to not get distracted by the shitty looks for an hour or so, many of them would be hooked by the game.
I was more into the WC3 scene in like 2004-2008, and even there you could see how the interest decreased once the good information, tournaments and streams went down one after the other. As far as I see it (again, I was not a big part of the scene) Starcraft had very few of these events/tournaments outside of Korea in the first place. There was TSL, WCG, and after that? I don't really know.
EPT
