|
I think people here are confusing tactics and charisma. You can be a highly charismatic leader who easily gets troops to follow your command but at the same time a shitty tactician. Also people on the SC2 boards tend to seriously downplay the importance of individual skill in DotA and LoL. Just because its a team game doesnt mean you can suck and ride your teammates to victory every game. 5 mechanically superior players will likely beat a strategically superior, yet mechanically inferior team purely by the numbers. It's like how in SC2 the player with better macro will generally win because they just have more stuff. The difference between winning and losing still boils down to which team makes less mistakes which is a pretty constant concept across competitions, not limited to video games.
|
You make some very good points but in my opinion the fundamental flaw is: the game just isn't that good.
While for example 15 year old Broodwar has retained his place as one of the most played games in south korean pc bangs (last I heard it was the 6th most played game), Sc2 has been dropping constantly. From 13th last year to 21th this year. Now far be if from me to spark the over9000th Bw vs Sc2 flamewar, but the fact remains that the popularity of the game seems to have dropped quite a bit while other games' rises. To be sure, the market that Sc2 has to compete in is a lot different from the one in which Broodwar had it's prime, but Bw kept me hooked for 10 years while I put Sc2 away after a couple of months.
I think the last (spotlighted?) analysis of how the clunky broodwar game mechanics make the game actually more interesting said it best: The Broodwar phenomenon was a huge stroke of luck (chance whatever) and it appears that Blizzard was simply (and understandably) incapable to reproduce the same "miracle".
I guess I'm pretty darwinistic in my approach to to this- if the game isn't strong enough, let it die.
|
On October 04 2013 12:51 ChoiSulli wrote:
Damn I think just referring people to Goldfish' post is all I need to do. Its such a good explanation as to why even though BW is infinetly harder to play, it is so fucking fun and you can feel yourself improving and it is such a rewarding feeling. I want to just make a point about the spectator experience, to me there is no WOW factor in sc2, nothing that impresses since its all fucking easy to do. Oh shit he targeted down the colossus oh shit he empd the entire army oh shit he spread out his death ball. There is more casuals who ladder in sc2 then there ever were in BW... in BW we all accepted we sucked at the game and werent going to be good enough and so we mostly played UMS. But we all fucking tuned in to watch the pros do shit we would never be able to. All you gotta do is go turn on Bisu's stream, first of all there is not anyone else that handsome and there is not anyone else that can play BW that way.
Completely agree. After not playing sc2 for over a year and not watching any of it for over half a year because of how stale and boring it was I saw bisu streaming bw last week or something. Just watching him micro ~15 dragoons away from vultures+minefields in late game while macroing off 4 bases 2 of which were getting seiged by sea because he desperately could not lose those dragoons filled me with awe that I have never felt watching sc2. He even lost that game like 5 minutes later but it reminded me of why i loved bw so much and how i never felt the same joy watching or playing sc2.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 05 2013 02:59 Monsen wrote:The Broodwar phenomenon was a huge stroke of luck (chance whatever) and it appears that Blizzard was simply (and understandably) incapable to reproduce the same "miracle".
/thread
|
On October 05 2013 02:08 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 01:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 01:30 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 01:10 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 00:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 04 2013 16:43 ETisME wrote:On October 04 2013 16:18 MikeMM wrote:On October 04 2013 15:36 ETisME wrote:On October 04 2013 15:16 MikeMM wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean more successful?
BW was released 15 years ago, do you know any other game of 20th century that is doing as well as BW right now?
SC2 is more popular right now just because it is NEW game. Casuals mostly dont care about game mechanics and depth they just want to play game which is easy and new.
But since SC2 doesnt have such depth that BW has, SC2 wont last as esport as long as BW lasted.
Since SC2 is more popular right now among casual players these casual players wont be playing and watching this game for long.
bigger prizepool and such? here's a BW dreamhack final thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132039more foreign major sponsors? as for the BW 15 years ago comment, sour that we don't live in 15 years ago anymore. Players don't invest so much time into a game anymore, they want an easier to pick up but hard to master game. No one wants to play a game that controls don't feel fluid. Don't think so? Check out the change in resident evil and FF. SC2 isn't NEW by any mean for a modern gaming standard, games like GTA V, BF4 are new. unless you would also consider final fantasy 13 to be new. (which already received several DLCs and sequels) SC2 will last however long until it faces another big competitor. Just like how BW was pretty safe from any competitions in S.Korea for years until League took over, a game that is easier, simplier, more international, and arguably a lot less depth than bw. I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5. Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious. ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group. anyone who have read history would know how insanely rare it is to have a great strategist And anyone who read *actual* history knows that what made those strategists great was how they got hundreds and thousands of people to work together for a common goal. And how those "strategists" were just the leads of a team or even teams of strategists working together and leaning on the "leader" to make the final decision after his "subordinates" gives him the options that *they* come up together as a team. not really. that is the role of the emperor or the general/captain, not sure how it works in Western but in China, strategist are famous for famous strategies against another strategist read red cliff for example In western culture, everyone is allowed to give tactical decisions to their immediate superior and if they like your strategy it gets moved up the chain of command. At some point the general/captain gets dozens upon dozens of suggestions and plans, parses them, and take the best bits out of all of them and uses and incorporates them into the overall strategy. Sometimes he follows the ideas that started from the low echelons, sometimes he discards all of the ideas and just follows his. The goal is teamwork. Each general has several advisers to help him on strategy. each of them are in contact with several field commanders to inform them of the current state as well as to suggest strategies as well. Those field commanders have troop commanders who does the same for them. Those troop commanders have their own hierarchies and so on and so forth. that is completely different to chinese then teamwork is almost a given in China. Armies are always very organised, anyone tries to escape will be killed, and in some dynasty, even kill the whole family. The level of tactics used in China is not achievable for any low level officers because the famous ones are literally a genius: Sun Tzu - the art of war Zhuge Liang Psychological warfare against the opponent's strategist is often seen in Chinese warfare. This is also why art of war has become more studied in all around the world, even in the finance field because it is applied game theory. honestly it is sad that most westerns won't be reading them. The amount of depth in Art of war is crazy. especially one that is called the empty castle technique: you are down in army size by a large margin, you are going to get sieged. what do you do? Open the city gate. Empty the guards. Using small forces to act as if there is an ambush awaiting. Annoy them every night and insert rumors, causing complete confusion in the enemy army. just to add, the reason why that succeeded is because he knew the opposing tactican/commander was a suspicious person
Those are all true for Western commanders as well.
Western thought simply believes in teams helping each other and not putting all responsibility and decision making in just 1 person.
|
On October 05 2013 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 02:08 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 01:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 01:30 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 01:10 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 00:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 04 2013 16:43 ETisME wrote:On October 04 2013 16:18 MikeMM wrote:On October 04 2013 15:36 ETisME wrote:[quote] bigger prizepool and such? here's a BW dreamhack final thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132039more foreign major sponsors? as for the BW 15 years ago comment, sour that we don't live in 15 years ago anymore. Players don't invest so much time into a game anymore, they want an easier to pick up but hard to master game. No one wants to play a game that controls don't feel fluid. Don't think so? Check out the change in resident evil and FF. SC2 isn't NEW by any mean for a modern gaming standard, games like GTA V, BF4 are new. unless you would also consider final fantasy 13 to be new. (which already received several DLCs and sequels) SC2 will last however long until it faces another big competitor. Just like how BW was pretty safe from any competitions in S.Korea for years until League took over, a game that is easier, simplier, more international, and arguably a lot less depth than bw. I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5. Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious. ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group. anyone who have read history would know how insanely rare it is to have a great strategist And anyone who read *actual* history knows that what made those strategists great was how they got hundreds and thousands of people to work together for a common goal. And how those "strategists" were just the leads of a team or even teams of strategists working together and leaning on the "leader" to make the final decision after his "subordinates" gives him the options that *they* come up together as a team. not really. that is the role of the emperor or the general/captain, not sure how it works in Western but in China, strategist are famous for famous strategies against another strategist read red cliff for example In western culture, everyone is allowed to give tactical decisions to their immediate superior and if they like your strategy it gets moved up the chain of command. At some point the general/captain gets dozens upon dozens of suggestions and plans, parses them, and take the best bits out of all of them and uses and incorporates them into the overall strategy. Sometimes he follows the ideas that started from the low echelons, sometimes he discards all of the ideas and just follows his. The goal is teamwork. Each general has several advisers to help him on strategy. each of them are in contact with several field commanders to inform them of the current state as well as to suggest strategies as well. Those field commanders have troop commanders who does the same for them. Those troop commanders have their own hierarchies and so on and so forth. that is completely different to chinese then teamwork is almost a given in China. Armies are always very organised, anyone tries to escape will be killed, and in some dynasty, even kill the whole family. The level of tactics used in China is not achievable for any low level officers because the famous ones are literally a genius: Sun Tzu - the art of war Zhuge Liang Psychological warfare against the opponent's strategist is often seen in Chinese warfare. This is also why art of war has become more studied in all around the world, even in the finance field because it is applied game theory. honestly it is sad that most westerns won't be reading them. The amount of depth in Art of war is crazy. especially one that is called the empty castle technique: you are down in army size by a large margin, you are going to get sieged. what do you do? Open the city gate. Empty the guards. Using small forces to act as if there is an ambush awaiting. Annoy them every night and insert rumors, causing complete confusion in the enemy army. just to add, the reason why that succeeded is because he knew the opposing tactican/commander was a suspicious person Those are all true for Western commanders as well. Western thought simply believes in teams helping each other and not putting all responsibility and decision making in just 1 person.
LoL is harder than Sc because it requires to coordinate with 4 other people.
Thus soccer is more than twice as hard as LoL because it takes 11 people to play.
And the hardestestest thing ever to achieve is that stuff the Chinese did at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics there.
+ Show Spoiler +I'd elaborate further on the stupidity of taking team coordination as the sole measurement for game difficulty but I'm fairly sure it's not worth any more of my time.
|
On October 05 2013 03:03 kaisr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 12:51 ChoiSulli wrote:
Damn I think just referring people to Goldfish' post is all I need to do. Its such a good explanation as to why even though BW is infinetly harder to play, it is so fucking fun and you can feel yourself improving and it is such a rewarding feeling. I want to just make a point about the spectator experience, to me there is no WOW factor in sc2, nothing that impresses since its all fucking easy to do. Oh shit he targeted down the colossus oh shit he empd the entire army oh shit he spread out his death ball. There is more casuals who ladder in sc2 then there ever were in BW... in BW we all accepted we sucked at the game and werent going to be good enough and so we mostly played UMS. But we all fucking tuned in to watch the pros do shit we would never be able to. All you gotta do is go turn on Bisu's stream, first of all there is not anyone else that handsome and there is not anyone else that can play BW that way. Completely agree. After not playing sc2 for over a year and not watching any of it for over half a year because of how stale and boring it was I saw bisu streaming bw last week or something. Just watching him micro ~15 dragoons away from vultures+minefields in late game while macroing off 4 bases 2 of which were getting seiged by sea because he desperately could not lose those dragoons filled me with awe that I have never felt watching sc2. He even lost that game like 5 minutes later but it reminded me of why i loved bw so much and how i never felt the same joy watching or playing sc2.
Just as a bit of a curious detail, how many satisfying losing games people have had in SC2?
In BW you can still appreciate loads of small stuff even if you lose. Landing a good scarab or sniping a lurker is still satisfying in a lost game. In SC2 I can't think of any similar experiences.
|
On October 05 2013 04:15 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 02:08 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 01:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 01:30 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 01:10 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 00:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 04 2013 16:43 ETisME wrote:On October 04 2013 16:18 MikeMM wrote:
[quote]
I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5.
Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious.
ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group. anyone who have read history would know how insanely rare it is to have a great strategist And anyone who read *actual* history knows that what made those strategists great was how they got hundreds and thousands of people to work together for a common goal. And how those "strategists" were just the leads of a team or even teams of strategists working together and leaning on the "leader" to make the final decision after his "subordinates" gives him the options that *they* come up together as a team. not really. that is the role of the emperor or the general/captain, not sure how it works in Western but in China, strategist are famous for famous strategies against another strategist read red cliff for example In western culture, everyone is allowed to give tactical decisions to their immediate superior and if they like your strategy it gets moved up the chain of command. At some point the general/captain gets dozens upon dozens of suggestions and plans, parses them, and take the best bits out of all of them and uses and incorporates them into the overall strategy. Sometimes he follows the ideas that started from the low echelons, sometimes he discards all of the ideas and just follows his. The goal is teamwork. Each general has several advisers to help him on strategy. each of them are in contact with several field commanders to inform them of the current state as well as to suggest strategies as well. Those field commanders have troop commanders who does the same for them. Those troop commanders have their own hierarchies and so on and so forth. that is completely different to chinese then teamwork is almost a given in China. Armies are always very organised, anyone tries to escape will be killed, and in some dynasty, even kill the whole family. The level of tactics used in China is not achievable for any low level officers because the famous ones are literally a genius: Sun Tzu - the art of war Zhuge Liang Psychological warfare against the opponent's strategist is often seen in Chinese warfare. This is also why art of war has become more studied in all around the world, even in the finance field because it is applied game theory. honestly it is sad that most westerns won't be reading them. The amount of depth in Art of war is crazy. especially one that is called the empty castle technique: you are down in army size by a large margin, you are going to get sieged. what do you do? Open the city gate. Empty the guards. Using small forces to act as if there is an ambush awaiting. Annoy them every night and insert rumors, causing complete confusion in the enemy army. just to add, the reason why that succeeded is because he knew the opposing tactican/commander was a suspicious person Those are all true for Western commanders as well. Western thought simply believes in teams helping each other and not putting all responsibility and decision making in just 1 person. LoL is harder than Sc because it requires to coordinate with 4 other people. Thus soccer is more than twice as hard as LoL because it takes 11 people to play. And the hardestestest thing ever to achieve is that stuff the Chinese did at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics there. + Show Spoiler +I'd elaborate further on the stupidity of taking team coordination as the sole measurement for game difficulty but I'm fairly sure it's not worth any more of my time.
To be fair though, what the Chinese did at their opening ceremonies was really insane.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 05 2013 04:19 Bacillus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 03:03 kaisr wrote:On October 04 2013 12:51 ChoiSulli wrote:
Damn I think just referring people to Goldfish' post is all I need to do. Its such a good explanation as to why even though BW is infinetly harder to play, it is so fucking fun and you can feel yourself improving and it is such a rewarding feeling. I want to just make a point about the spectator experience, to me there is no WOW factor in sc2, nothing that impresses since its all fucking easy to do. Oh shit he targeted down the colossus oh shit he empd the entire army oh shit he spread out his death ball. There is more casuals who ladder in sc2 then there ever were in BW... in BW we all accepted we sucked at the game and werent going to be good enough and so we mostly played UMS. But we all fucking tuned in to watch the pros do shit we would never be able to. All you gotta do is go turn on Bisu's stream, first of all there is not anyone else that handsome and there is not anyone else that can play BW that way. Completely agree. After not playing sc2 for over a year and not watching any of it for over half a year because of how stale and boring it was I saw bisu streaming bw last week or something. Just watching him micro ~15 dragoons away from vultures+minefields in late game while macroing off 4 bases 2 of which were getting seiged by sea because he desperately could not lose those dragoons filled me with awe that I have never felt watching sc2. He even lost that game like 5 minutes later but it reminded me of why i loved bw so much and how i never felt the same joy watching or playing sc2. Just as a bit of a curious detail, how many satisfying losing games people have had in SC2? In BW you can still appreciate loads of small stuff even if you lose. Landing a good scarab or sniping a lurker is still satisfying in a lost game. In SC2 I can't think of any similar experiences.
Tbh BW was/is more relaxing of a game even without satisfying moments. SC2 on other hand is rather stressing.
|
On October 05 2013 04:19 Bacillus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 03:03 kaisr wrote:On October 04 2013 12:51 ChoiSulli wrote:
Damn I think just referring people to Goldfish' post is all I need to do. Its such a good explanation as to why even though BW is infinetly harder to play, it is so fucking fun and you can feel yourself improving and it is such a rewarding feeling. I want to just make a point about the spectator experience, to me there is no WOW factor in sc2, nothing that impresses since its all fucking easy to do. Oh shit he targeted down the colossus oh shit he empd the entire army oh shit he spread out his death ball. There is more casuals who ladder in sc2 then there ever were in BW... in BW we all accepted we sucked at the game and werent going to be good enough and so we mostly played UMS. But we all fucking tuned in to watch the pros do shit we would never be able to. All you gotta do is go turn on Bisu's stream, first of all there is not anyone else that handsome and there is not anyone else that can play BW that way. Completely agree. After not playing sc2 for over a year and not watching any of it for over half a year because of how stale and boring it was I saw bisu streaming bw last week or something. Just watching him micro ~15 dragoons away from vultures+minefields in late game while macroing off 4 bases 2 of which were getting seiged by sea because he desperately could not lose those dragoons filled me with awe that I have never felt watching sc2. He even lost that game like 5 minutes later but it reminded me of why i loved bw so much and how i never felt the same joy watching or playing sc2. Just as a bit of a curious detail, how many satisfying losing games people have had in SC2? In BW you can still appreciate loads of small stuff even if you lose. Landing a good scarab or sniping a lurker is still satisfying in a lost game. In SC2 I can't think of any similar experiences. Off the top of my head:
Burrowed Banelings
Widow Mine baits
Seeker Missile connections
Good phoenix harrass
Money storms
Doom drops
Nydus shenanigans
Perfect blink engagement
Ultralisk-induced panic
Probe sneak-arounds
Lots of great, cool things can happen in a lost game that I appreciate and build on. Sometimes they're things I do, sometimes an opponent pulls off such a ridiculously sick hold or bait or whatever that I just sit there for a few seconds in utter appreciation of the mastery with which I've been killed.
|
On October 05 2013 04:27 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:19 Bacillus wrote:On October 05 2013 03:03 kaisr wrote:On October 04 2013 12:51 ChoiSulli wrote:
Damn I think just referring people to Goldfish' post is all I need to do. Its such a good explanation as to why even though BW is infinetly harder to play, it is so fucking fun and you can feel yourself improving and it is such a rewarding feeling. I want to just make a point about the spectator experience, to me there is no WOW factor in sc2, nothing that impresses since its all fucking easy to do. Oh shit he targeted down the colossus oh shit he empd the entire army oh shit he spread out his death ball. There is more casuals who ladder in sc2 then there ever were in BW... in BW we all accepted we sucked at the game and werent going to be good enough and so we mostly played UMS. But we all fucking tuned in to watch the pros do shit we would never be able to. All you gotta do is go turn on Bisu's stream, first of all there is not anyone else that handsome and there is not anyone else that can play BW that way. Completely agree. After not playing sc2 for over a year and not watching any of it for over half a year because of how stale and boring it was I saw bisu streaming bw last week or something. Just watching him micro ~15 dragoons away from vultures+minefields in late game while macroing off 4 bases 2 of which were getting seiged by sea because he desperately could not lose those dragoons filled me with awe that I have never felt watching sc2. He even lost that game like 5 minutes later but it reminded me of why i loved bw so much and how i never felt the same joy watching or playing sc2. Just as a bit of a curious detail, how many satisfying losing games people have had in SC2? In BW you can still appreciate loads of small stuff even if you lose. Landing a good scarab or sniping a lurker is still satisfying in a lost game. In SC2 I can't think of any similar experiences. Off the top of my head: Burrowed Banelings Widow Mine baits Seeker Missile connections Good phoenix harrass Money storms Doom drops Nydus shenanigans Perfect blink engagement Ultralisk-induced panic Probe sneak-arounds Lots of great, cool things can happen in a lost game that I appreciate and build on. Sometimes they're things I do, sometimes an opponent pulls off such a ridiculously sick hold or bait or whatever that I just sit there for a few seconds in utter appreciation of the mastery with which I've been killed.
None of that is comparable to a Reaver
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 05 2013 04:37 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:27 RampancyTW wrote:On October 05 2013 04:19 Bacillus wrote:On October 05 2013 03:03 kaisr wrote:On October 04 2013 12:51 ChoiSulli wrote:
Damn I think just referring people to Goldfish' post is all I need to do. Its such a good explanation as to why even though BW is infinetly harder to play, it is so fucking fun and you can feel yourself improving and it is such a rewarding feeling. I want to just make a point about the spectator experience, to me there is no WOW factor in sc2, nothing that impresses since its all fucking easy to do. Oh shit he targeted down the colossus oh shit he empd the entire army oh shit he spread out his death ball. There is more casuals who ladder in sc2 then there ever were in BW... in BW we all accepted we sucked at the game and werent going to be good enough and so we mostly played UMS. But we all fucking tuned in to watch the pros do shit we would never be able to. All you gotta do is go turn on Bisu's stream, first of all there is not anyone else that handsome and there is not anyone else that can play BW that way. Completely agree. After not playing sc2 for over a year and not watching any of it for over half a year because of how stale and boring it was I saw bisu streaming bw last week or something. Just watching him micro ~15 dragoons away from vultures+minefields in late game while macroing off 4 bases 2 of which were getting seiged by sea because he desperately could not lose those dragoons filled me with awe that I have never felt watching sc2. He even lost that game like 5 minutes later but it reminded me of why i loved bw so much and how i never felt the same joy watching or playing sc2. Just as a bit of a curious detail, how many satisfying losing games people have had in SC2? In BW you can still appreciate loads of small stuff even if you lose. Landing a good scarab or sniping a lurker is still satisfying in a lost game. In SC2 I can't think of any similar experiences. Off the top of my head: Burrowed Banelings Widow Mine baits Seeker Missile connections Good phoenix harrass Money storms Doom drops Nydus shenanigans Perfect blink engagement Ultralisk-induced panic Probe sneak-arounds Lots of great, cool things can happen in a lost game that I appreciate and build on. Sometimes they're things I do, sometimes an opponent pulls off such a ridiculously sick hold or bait or whatever that I just sit there for a few seconds in utter appreciation of the mastery with which I've been killed. None of that is comparable to a Reaver
This is opinion, do not forget to mention it. Granted, would not help either way.
|
On October 05 2013 04:37 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:27 RampancyTW wrote:On October 05 2013 04:19 Bacillus wrote:On October 05 2013 03:03 kaisr wrote:On October 04 2013 12:51 ChoiSulli wrote:
Damn I think just referring people to Goldfish' post is all I need to do. Its such a good explanation as to why even though BW is infinetly harder to play, it is so fucking fun and you can feel yourself improving and it is such a rewarding feeling. I want to just make a point about the spectator experience, to me there is no WOW factor in sc2, nothing that impresses since its all fucking easy to do. Oh shit he targeted down the colossus oh shit he empd the entire army oh shit he spread out his death ball. There is more casuals who ladder in sc2 then there ever were in BW... in BW we all accepted we sucked at the game and werent going to be good enough and so we mostly played UMS. But we all fucking tuned in to watch the pros do shit we would never be able to. All you gotta do is go turn on Bisu's stream, first of all there is not anyone else that handsome and there is not anyone else that can play BW that way. Completely agree. After not playing sc2 for over a year and not watching any of it for over half a year because of how stale and boring it was I saw bisu streaming bw last week or something. Just watching him micro ~15 dragoons away from vultures+minefields in late game while macroing off 4 bases 2 of which were getting seiged by sea because he desperately could not lose those dragoons filled me with awe that I have never felt watching sc2. He even lost that game like 5 minutes later but it reminded me of why i loved bw so much and how i never felt the same joy watching or playing sc2. Just as a bit of a curious detail, how many satisfying losing games people have had in SC2? In BW you can still appreciate loads of small stuff even if you lose. Landing a good scarab or sniping a lurker is still satisfying in a lost game. In SC2 I can't think of any similar experiences. Off the top of my head: Burrowed Banelings Widow Mine baits Seeker Missile connections Good phoenix harrass Money storms Doom drops Nydus shenanigans Perfect blink engagement Ultralisk-induced panic Probe sneak-arounds Lots of great, cool things can happen in a lost game that I appreciate and build on. Sometimes they're things I do, sometimes an opponent pulls off such a ridiculously sick hold or bait or whatever that I just sit there for a few seconds in utter appreciation of the mastery with which I've been killed. None of that is comparable to a Reaver Why not? Reavers are cool, but there's nothing that makes them objectively cooler than most of the above.
|
On October 05 2013 04:15 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 02:08 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 01:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 01:30 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 05 2013 01:10 ETisME wrote:On October 05 2013 00:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 04 2013 16:43 ETisME wrote:On October 04 2013 16:18 MikeMM wrote:
[quote]
I am not so sure about MOBA games being simpler and easier than BW. Yes for one player it’s easier to control one unit. But as a whole the game is more complicated since five players are needed to control all the heroes. What game is more complicated in SC2 5x5 or 1x1? Definitely 5x5.
Team games are more complicated than single games I think it’s quite obvious.
ok. so you are saying league is more complicated than bw. i have to disagree on that and leave the argument here Anyone with management experience knows just how insanely difficult it is to get people to work as a group. anyone who have read history would know how insanely rare it is to have a great strategist And anyone who read *actual* history knows that what made those strategists great was how they got hundreds and thousands of people to work together for a common goal. And how those "strategists" were just the leads of a team or even teams of strategists working together and leaning on the "leader" to make the final decision after his "subordinates" gives him the options that *they* come up together as a team. not really. that is the role of the emperor or the general/captain, not sure how it works in Western but in China, strategist are famous for famous strategies against another strategist read red cliff for example In western culture, everyone is allowed to give tactical decisions to their immediate superior and if they like your strategy it gets moved up the chain of command. At some point the general/captain gets dozens upon dozens of suggestions and plans, parses them, and take the best bits out of all of them and uses and incorporates them into the overall strategy. Sometimes he follows the ideas that started from the low echelons, sometimes he discards all of the ideas and just follows his. The goal is teamwork. Each general has several advisers to help him on strategy. each of them are in contact with several field commanders to inform them of the current state as well as to suggest strategies as well. Those field commanders have troop commanders who does the same for them. Those troop commanders have their own hierarchies and so on and so forth. that is completely different to chinese then teamwork is almost a given in China. Armies are always very organised, anyone tries to escape will be killed, and in some dynasty, even kill the whole family. The level of tactics used in China is not achievable for any low level officers because the famous ones are literally a genius: Sun Tzu - the art of war Zhuge Liang Psychological warfare against the opponent's strategist is often seen in Chinese warfare. This is also why art of war has become more studied in all around the world, even in the finance field because it is applied game theory. honestly it is sad that most westerns won't be reading them. The amount of depth in Art of war is crazy. especially one that is called the empty castle technique: you are down in army size by a large margin, you are going to get sieged. what do you do? Open the city gate. Empty the guards. Using small forces to act as if there is an ambush awaiting. Annoy them every night and insert rumors, causing complete confusion in the enemy army. just to add, the reason why that succeeded is because he knew the opposing tactican/commander was a suspicious person Those are all true for Western commanders as well. Western thought simply believes in teams helping each other and not putting all responsibility and decision making in just 1 person. LoL is harder than Sc because it requires to coordinate with 4 other people. Thus soccer is more than twice as hard as LoL because it takes 11 people to play. And the hardestestest thing ever to achieve is that stuff the Chinese did at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics there. + Show Spoiler +I'd elaborate further on the stupidity of taking team coordination as the sole measurement for game difficulty but I'm fairly sure it's not worth any more of my time.
No one is making the argument that team coordination is the sole measurement for difficulty. Simply that you cannot disregard teamwork in teamgames as something irrelevant when determining the overall difficulty of a game.
Trying to argue whether or not being a sniper or a general is more difficult than the other is silly. One is hard to do because being a sniper is difficult, the other is hard because managing several 100,000 people is difficult. Trying to argue one being "more" difficult than the other is just silly.
Soccer is more mechanically difficult than BW, it is also more difficult to manage team wise than LoL. But it also encompasses a smaller tactical play space than either. Different games have different difficulties.
Flash might be able to run circles around anyone in BW, but he does not have the connections, finances, or people skills to put together the chinese opening ceremonies during the olympic games. But the operations manager who headed that production will crumble against Flash if he tried to play BW.
There is no point arguing which is more difficult. And it doesn't matter if its managing a 5 player team in LoL or managing difficult mechanics in BW.
|
On October 04 2013 13:33 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 12:51 ChoiSulli wrote:
Damn I think just referring people to Goldfish' post is all I need to do. Its such a good explanation as to why even though BW is infinetly harder to play, it is so fucking fun and you can feel yourself improving and it is such a rewarding feeling. I want to just make a point about the spectator experience, to me there is no WOW factor in sc2, nothing that impresses since its all fucking easy to do. Oh shit he targeted down the colossus oh shit he empd the entire army oh shit he spread out his death ball. There is more casuals who ladder in sc2 then there ever were in BW... in BW we all accepted we sucked at the game and werent going to be good enough and so we mostly played UMS. But we all fucking tuned in to watch the pros do shit we would never be able to. All you gotta do is go turn on Bisu's stream, first of all there is not anyone else that handsome and there is not anyone else that can play BW that way. Cool How in the hell does that develop a scene? It doesn't. Brutally hard games have a niche scene like what BW was outside of Korea. It doesn't mean that SC2 shouldn't be more in depth, and there's a shit ton that SC2 can and should learn from BW, but the fact that it was brutally hard and derp derp everyone sucked is not a good idea. Who wants to play a game that they suck at unless they practice 10 hours a day?
I didnt suggest that BW being hard developed the scene? Spectator experience is far more important in the long run then game play. At BW a lot of people just fucked around on UMS, but the depth and excitement of the games themselves is what developed the BW scene. I watch all sorts of sports on TV that I dont play but I can appreciate the shit they are able to do, and it entertains me. BW has that, sc2 does not.. i know to each its own so that is strictly for me. I do still watch sc2 from time to time but mostly just because im invested in some of the old BW players.
To your second point about who wants to play a game they suck at.... well I dont know if you played BW. Yes it is very hard but sucked is a relative term. We all sucked in it compared to the pros. I'm D+ in BW but I can go log on and rape master level players in SC2. The fact that I suck compared to so many other people, dosent mean I dont have fun playing. Yes its frustraiting when late game my mechanics let me down and I look up and have 2k minerals with only 120 supply, but at the same time I could sometimes watch a replay 10 times after I won, I would disect everything I did that game, I would gloat for fucking hours over that victory. That kind of satisfaction I dont get on the sc2 ladder.
I think the main difference in BW and SC2 both in fun playing and spectator entertainment, is what happens after the armies get big, yes there are a lot of differences before then to, because in BW there is a lot more activity on the map but you have turtle games in BW also, especially PVT. In BW when a 200/200 P and T engage it is just the begining of the game. It turns into Terran constantly trying to take out expos while Toss is constantly trading at a loss and just trying to slow down the army, while denying Terran from expanding further. You can have battles all over the map, a terran can crush a battle but still not be able to move in and finish the game because reinforcing takes time, high ground is so advantages to toss, can further slow them down with storms, stasis, plus shitty pathing. In SC2 usually after one big battle if you won decisevely the game ends, ur in the opoents face, u reinforce so fast, and the giant death ball will rape the smaller death ball, because positioning, AOE, high ground and defenders advantage dont mean shit all in sc2.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 05 2013 05:59 ChoiSulli wrote: because positioning, AOE, high ground and defenders advantage dont mean shit all in sc2.
*Checks toss deathball main element*, oh i guess it does not mean shit. Positioning part is even funnier tbh, because positioning of those deathballs plays much larger role than statement ball implies.
|
On October 05 2013 06:20 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 05:59 ChoiSulli wrote: because positioning, AOE, high ground and defenders advantage dont mean shit all in sc2.
*Checks toss deathball main element*, oh i guess it does not mean shit. Positioning part is even funnier tbh, because positioning of those deathballs plays much larger role than statement ball implies. Really every single one of those statements is wrong in SC2, except maybe for highground past the early game
|
On October 05 2013 06:20 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 05:59 ChoiSulli wrote: because positioning, AOE, high ground and defenders advantage dont mean shit all in sc2.
*Checks toss deathball main element*, oh i guess it does not mean shit. Positioning part is even funnier tbh, because positioning of those deathballs plays much larger role than statement ball implies.
That is strictly referring to after Terran wins a battle, and is about to march down your door... In SC2 you can have the most beautiful concave ever, which isnt exciting anyway but whatever...and it still wont matter cause death ball size will roll you. You are probably right that since everything is going to die in 5 seconds whoever had their death ball in the better position will win the battle and since all the other things I mentioned dont matter after the fact, it means they'll go on and win the game.
|
On October 05 2013 06:29 ChoiSulli wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 06:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 05 2013 05:59 ChoiSulli wrote: because positioning, AOE, high ground and defenders advantage dont mean shit all in sc2.
*Checks toss deathball main element*, oh i guess it does not mean shit. Positioning part is even funnier tbh, because positioning of those deathballs plays much larger role than statement ball implies. That is strictly referring to after Terran wins a battle, and is about to march down your door... In SC2 you can have the most beautiful concave ever, which isnt exciting anyway but whatever...and it still wont matter cause death ball size will roll you. You are probably right that since everything is going to die in 5 seconds whoever had their death ball in the better position will win the battle and since all the other things I mentioned dont matter after the fact, it means they'll go on and win the game. Not even remotely true between opponents of similar skill.
|
On October 05 2013 06:31 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 06:29 ChoiSulli wrote:On October 05 2013 06:20 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 05 2013 05:59 ChoiSulli wrote: because positioning, AOE, high ground and defenders advantage dont mean shit all in sc2.
*Checks toss deathball main element*, oh i guess it does not mean shit. Positioning part is even funnier tbh, because positioning of those deathballs plays much larger role than statement ball implies. That is strictly referring to after Terran wins a battle, and is about to march down your door... In SC2 you can have the most beautiful concave ever, which isnt exciting anyway but whatever...and it still wont matter cause death ball size will roll you. You are probably right that since everything is going to die in 5 seconds whoever had their death ball in the better position will win the battle and since all the other things I mentioned dont matter after the fact, it means they'll go on and win the game. Not even remotely true between opponents of similar skill.
I dunno here is a battle report from soulky vs rain game 2 from 2 days ago...
+ Show Spoiler +Rain would have a chance to even up the series in game two, but would instead end up committing the throw of the night. Safely going up to three bases, Rain assembled an extremely scary army at around the 16 minute mark of the game including several colossi, mass blink stalkers, and some void rays to boot. Even with hydras, swarm hosts, corruptors, and infestors ready on defense, Soulkey crumbled beneath the barrage of lasers.
The game seemed all but over as Rain walked over to the completely unprotected swarm hosts... ...except he had no way to fire upon them. In the most costly robotics mis-rally seen in a professional game, Rain had three observers chilling at his natural while his forces awkwardly stood on top of Soulkey's burrowed swarm hosts. While Rain eventually looked back and found his lost observers, he had already wasted too much time. Soulkey used the breathing room to remax with reinforcements, combining with his swarm hosts to crush Rain's army and take the game.
So Toss death ball rapes, zerg, Rain then would have kept rolling over zerg reinforcements if not for forgetting OBS. That gave Soulky a chance to then remax, and then he won the death ball engagement and Rain had to GG... cause positioning, AOE, high ground and defenders advantage dont mean shit all in sc2... not even remotely true between opponents of similar skill? I dont know what sc2 HOTS you watch but thats all I ever see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
