StarCraft 2: What's The Problem - Page 30

On September 27 2013 01:51 MrLion wrote:
The reason I stopped playing is the game's too much reliance on spamming keys and clicks (what is referred as macro). This limits the audience to people who like spamming keys and a little bit of tactics/strategy on top of it. I was a diamond reaching low masters, and it was really stupid how furiously you have to keep spamming keys to keep up with the opponents. This is not a battle of wits or intelligence.

Recently, I rediscovered chess. You just 1 or 2 apm to play chess, yet its complexity of tactics and strategy is orders of magnitude above sc2. I'm really enjoying playing it.
The difference in not being able to copy a gm in chess and sc2 is that in chess, you simply cannot think deep enough or just don't understand why a higher level player is making such moves. In sc2 it's cause I haven't practiced spamming buttons for hours everyday.

Not comparing LoL and chess, but in LoL too there is more "thinking" in 1 LoL game than 10 sc2 games combined, without spamming buttons. You just need one click to go from mid lane to bottom/top, but the question is should you go to top or bottom? Or just stay mid and farm? or are you expecting the enemy jungler to gank a lane and go and help them? There's some mechanics of last hitting, but there's a huge reliance on knowledge of different factors. Again emphasizing, a scrub and a top player in LoL has around the same apm, yet their gameplay is worlds apart.

There needs to be more depth in tactics and strategy in sc2.

On September 27 2013 01:51 MrLion wrote:
The reason I stopped playing is the game's too much reliance on spamming keys and clicks (what is referred as macro). This limits the audience to people who like spamming keys and a little bit of tactics/strategy on top of it. I was a diamond reaching low masters, and it was really stupid how furiously you have to keep spamming keys to keep up with the opponents. This is not a battle of wits or intelligence.

Recently, I rediscovered chess. You just 1 or 2 apm to play chess, yet its complexity of tactics and strategy is orders of magnitude above sc2. I'm really enjoying playing it.
The difference in not being able to copy a gm in chess and sc2 is that in chess, you simply cannot think deep enough or just don't understand why a higher level player is making such moves. In sc2 it's cause I haven't practiced spamming buttons for hours everyday.

Not comparing LoL and chess, but in LoL too there is more "thinking" in 1 LoL game than 10 sc2 games combined, without spamming buttons. You just need one click to go from mid lane to bottom/top, but the question is should you go to top or bottom? Or just stay mid and farm? or are you expecting the enemy jungler to gank a lane and go and help them? There's some mechanics of last hitting, but there's a huge reliance on knowledge of different factors. Again emphasizing, a scrub and a top player in LoL has around the same apm, yet their gameplay is worlds apart.

There needs to be more depth in tactics and strategy in sc2.

On September 27 2013 02:34 SpeghettiJoe wrote:


I totally agree. I was only plat in sc2 so I never really understood the click spamming. I just never did it. I'd hate to think that was why I never got better.

But I did get the sense that it was 95% execution and maybe 5% strategy. Pros just practice their builds and pre-selected tactics so much that they just execute them flawlessly at 200-300 APM. A lot of pros don't even scout, as I saw in many WCS matches.

Pros in LoL have about the same APM as a silver player, but what separates them is their deep understanding of game strategy. They know all the strengths/weaknesses of the 100+ champions, how to itemize, how to balance between fighting and taking objectives, etc.

It's definitely a more strategy based game than an APM based one.

On September 27 2013 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:

Which is why strats like mass voidray works in bronze, but not in GM.

On September 27 2013 02:42 lolfail9001 wrote:

*Cough* sOs and Alicia *cough*

On September 27 2013 02:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:


You obviously don't understand what bronze level mass void play is

On September 27 2013 04:46 nottapro wrote:


If anyone needs a demonstration, I will gladly cannon rush you then build voidrays behind a walled in 1-2 base, for my mid game 1A voidray attack. I happen to be a proffesional bronze league player.

On September 27 2013 06:17 Destructicon wrote:
I can't believe some of you are actually even downplaying the depth of a SC2. 10 more things to think about in a LoL game then in a SC2 game? Get real, if you think that you have obviously never watched a high level GSL or listened to Artosis analyze in depth how a build will pan out from the subtleties of a game.

There are tons of things you need to take into consideration when playing SC2. Did he open GW first or quick Nexus? Did he take 1 gas or 2? How many probes does he have in each gas? How many pylons does he have in his base, where are the pylons placed? When did he expand? Is he making tech or GWs? Does he have many sentries?

These lead to a huge number of permutations and possible strategies, they can lead to economical and greedy play in the form of double forge, robo tech or twilight tech with later GWs, they can lead into timings or pressures of different kinds or they can go into all-ins straight up.

Against zerg, did he open pool first or hatch first? Did he take gas? How long has he harvested from the gas? Has he gotten a 3rd at a normal time? Did he get additional tech, how many queens does he have? Did he get additional gases?

I also dare not touch ZvP because the number of possible questions that need to be asked by a pro player, as well as the number of possible permutations in possible strategies, economical, tech or timing or all-in from both sides with all the possible follow ups.

You are either naive or a blind hater if you truly believe LoL has more depth then SC2. The shear number of possibilities available to all races, the subtleties of reading into all of them coupled with the number of follow ups that you need to take into account are truly vast.
I guess its kind of easy to just write off the game as having little to no depth when you as an observer can see everything, and its easy to overlook all the subtleties that need to be read into to make a proper assessment of the situation and be able to adapt to it.

And don't even dare to bring mechanics into this discussion. Its exactly this difference in mechanics between players that makes this game exciting and its what made BW one of the greatest games ever. Even if the game is figured out and even if you have standardized strategies, it is still exciting to watch games to see how the players execute said strategies, you had a sense of wonder, nothing is completely set in stone, you still see upsets like Soulkey losing to True, MC losing to Thorzain etc.

You are only getting the illusion of lack of depth because you see opponents of vast skill differences fighting each other and one coming out ahead by a wide margin, so you draw the incorrect assumption that mechanics is all that matters. However when opponents are very close together in skill and in particular at the highest level of play, then they are so close in mechanical skill that they need other skills to differentiate themselves.

What I'm saying is, mechanics are important, but only up until a certain level, after that though, other factors start mattering more. And this, in my opinion, is great and its just as it should be, because, even if you want to do an a 14 min SCV pull timing against a protoss, if you don't have the mechanics to macro properly, then you can't even think about hitting said timing, or if you don't have the micro you can't even contemplate executing a PartinG soul push.

TLDR
Mechanics do matter, but only up until a certain threshold, beyond which its very hard to improve further mechanically, after that other factors start to matter much more, and here is where you can see the true beauty of RTS games like SC2, the vast depth of strategies and the infinite ebb and flow between them. You are severely depreciating SC2 if you believe LoL has more depth then it, and you should consider watching some truly high level games to capture its magic. Don't let low level games with huge skill gaps between players influence your opinion on the game.

On September 27 2013 06:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:


He was not talking about SC2 lacking depth, he was talking about emphasis.

None of the depth in SC2 and BW is relevant to people who don't have the hand speed to execute them.

LoL does not have as high of skill-wall preventing players from groking it allowing them to immediately go into the strategic smart play style of game that he is describing.

His example of chess is revealing because he focused on the low apm requirement of chess as a plus while most SC2/BW loyalists wants for there to be APM tax to differentiate the skilled from the unskilled.

On September 27 2013 07:08 LaLuSh wrote:


I don't think the chess example holds.

How much of a chance do you actually stand in chess with no training against an experienced player? Chess is just as much a game of rote memorization, of studying and of training. There's lots of "boring" aspects of chess you have to get through in order to become decently competitive at it.

But sure, maybe chess is a more "relaxing" game when you're matched up with other players of your calibre. Though I sort of have my doubts about that as well. There honestly shouldn't be too much of a difference between battling it out in bronze league and noob level chess.

And if you're a diamond-master level player in SC2, I'd say the corresponding level in chess would likely also put pressure and stress on you. Especially when facing a superior and more knowledgeable opponent.

I don't think a game's depth necessarily has much to do with its accessability. The negative form of depth, though, is often labelled in game design as "complexity". Those are the so called pointless hurdles that players have to overcome to actually have a chance at playing the game. You have to have some degree of complexity in your game to be able to have depth. The trick is to squeeze as much depth as possible out of the available complexity.

The fact that chess is incredibly deep at the top levels, the fact that you have to train, study and grind for thousands upon thousands of hours of "boringly complex" books, board positions and opponents to become the best at chess really resembles the mechanical side of Starcraft. This "depth" does not mean that either Chess or Starcraft has to be boring for players of lower levels. Where Starcraft has burdens of mechanical execution, Chess has just as much of a burden of knowledge and of mental execution. You can always discuss which game is more complex ad infinitum without agreeing. I'll just end this with saying I don't think chess is the best example here. There are plenty of games with simpler, more straight forward rules that are more popular.

Personally I think SC2 should embrace its mechanical side. 1v1 multiplayer popularity is hardly going to be adversely affected by increasing mechanical strain at the top levels. The bronze leaguers willing to learn the rules of the game will be just as terrible and far removed from that aspect of the game as before, just as novice chess players will continue to be far removed from the complex/deep parts of chess upon starting out.

I certainly think SC2 traded away a good portion of its depth needlessly, but I'll address that at a different time.

On September 27 2013 08:08 Destructicon wrote:
While you may be correct in that LoL might be closer to chess, since strategy has a greater emphasis then mechanics, I say that LoL is poorer for it. Chess has a greater emphasis placed on strategy and tactics due to its resource, turns, while LoL uses the same resource as BW or SC2, time, but chooses to use it in a way that marginalizes mechanics more then BW or SC2, and this, in my opinion impacts LoL negatively.

If there are less things to do in a certain time frame, that could impact the outcome of the game, then it stands to reason there are less correct things to do, and thus there are less ways to spend time on, and, ultimately, this leads to there being less ways to distinguish between great players and truly brilliant ones.

You say LoL is better because it has more emphasis on strategy, I say nay, because time and strategy interlocked, RTS is the management of time in a strategical and tactical context, you can't have one without the other, and thus LoL is poorer for it, because there are less ways for good players to distinguish between each other, given that there are less things to juggle in a certain time frame.

And while this may come as a contradiction, it doesn't mean that one game can be more enjoyable then another, or that one game is strictly better, fun is a subjective matter, some people may not want to have to juggle several tasks at once, they prefer a more slow paced game. However, LoL is akin more to an action game, which it actually is, a 5 man action team game, and not a real RTS, because the heart and soul of a true RTS, that which makes it shine brightest, was, is and always will be, the management of time and material resources, and a strategical and tactical context.

On September 27 2013 08:12 LaLuSh wrote:
There are too many people justifying and excusing themselves in this thread, as though somehow their latent strategical genious were resticted by the mechanical difficulty of SC2.

Bullshit. Just as sure as fuck as you don't become a chess grandmaster from playing casually and infrequently with little or no effort put into studying the game (i.e. going through the boring and repetitive portions of what makes a competitive chess player competitive), just as sure could one say that you don't become a SC2 GM without putting in the same kind of effort.

You don't even need 200-300 apm to be a progamer. But you need to at least have studied the game long and deep, and grinded your ass off with the deliberate intent of learning and getting better. None of which, I can guarantee, any of you did.

So what if 200-300 apm is needed to be the best of the best in the world? Thousands upon thousands of hours of study, analysis and memorization is likewise needed to be the best of the best at Chess. Too many people in this thread acting like "strategy" manifests itself in a radically different manner in chess. Like you could become good at chess without having to put in just as much deliberate effort as you would do in Starcraft.

Get real. You would all have quit playing Chess for the same exact reasons you quit playing SC2 ("I have to study le books to stand a chance at moving up through the ranks? How unfair, where's the strategy in that?!")

On September 21 2013 03:40 Xeris wrote:
What's the problem: StarCraft 2 is too personality driven. There is no longevity here because a player's career is short lived.

The "esports" structure of SC is very personality driven. The fact that it is guided by personality over skill has created a situation where there are no replacements for today's big names. When they go, so goes the popularity of the game. This has been exacerbated by Blizzard (and everyone) not putting a lot of emphasis on teams and rather focusing on purely individual events. I know SC is unlike a MOBA and it's not a 'team' game, but you can have team events in SC. Who will replace Stephano as the badass European that can challenge the best in the world? Who can replace IdrA or White-Ra or Sheth? There is no crop of players who people care about that is 'up and coming' to fill the void when these prominent personalities leave the competitive scene: and the reason they're leaving is in large part because they don't really enjoy the game. Sure people like IdrA and White-Ra are still around, but their relevance will diminish over time the farther removed they are from being competitors. Relying on casters/hosts to drive viewership is not a good long term model.

If there was more focus and emphasis placed on teams this problem would be alleviated.

A major LoL team like TSM could lose TheOddOne and suffer a momentary dip in popularity, but they would eventually replace him, and as long as his skill was world-class, he would develop a following and the team's net popularity would remain the same.

On September 26 2013 22:44 Drlemur wrote:
Just about eSports -- if you want a big, professional scene (e.g., to support up-and-comers), you need a big watching fanbase.

Who is actually out there working to build the SC2 esports watching fanbase?

Xeris is, through the CSL, but I honestly don't see any other personalities out there trying to build up the number of SC2 esports viewers. A lot of focus goes on Blizzard about the game and building up the number of players, but that is going to have limited effectiveness. SC2 is a hard game and not everybody likes 1v1 or PvP games. If you want a big audience, you need people watching who aren't regular players.

That means 2 key things that I don't see in current SC2 esports:
1. Casting the game has to be aimed at a broader, less knowledgeable audience. More accurate play-by-play, less predictions about the build. Story lines that are accessible are about the players, tournaments, etc. and need less focus on the subtleties of gas timings on 4-gate variations (unless you can do that without interfering with the play-by-play). Watch some traditional sports sometimes and then compare to SC2 casting how much play-by-play they do. It's very different.

I love watching pro SC2, but whenever I'm tempted to try to get my casual playing friends to watch, I listen to the casting for awhile and realize there is no way they could follow the casting and I don't bother.