EPT+ Show Spoiler +
(And of course, Protoss represents all that is wrong with game design).
StarCraft 2: What's The Problem - Page 84
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:18 JustPassingBy wrote: The best tactic is useless if you don't have the mechanics to carry it out well enough though. Your mechanics determine which tactics are viable for you. Yeah but the execution of chess tactics isn't hard. It's not hard to threaten a fork or a skewer. It's hard to create a position where your opponent has no choice but to fall to these tactics. That's why it doesn't really make sense to put this under mechanics. | ||
|
ETisME
12541 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:27 Qwyn wrote: I think it speaks volumes that the only MU I enjoy (coincidentally the flagship matchup of SC2) is ZvT/TvZ. And it is NO coincidence that this MU happens to be the most mechanical of all...People have said it time and time again, but there are limiting dymanics in the other MUs which make them far less enjoyable than ZvT which I feel epitomizes the direction the game should move for all MUs. + Show Spoiler + (And of course, Protoss represents all that is wrong with game design). I actually think you are the minority here From what I read, most other people prefer zvp then every other match ups and it is because how diverse the unit composition can be | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:38 ETisME wrote: As a corollary to this, I really enjoy when the BW enthusiasts complain about ZvZ being a roach wars matchup when roach wars are, at their core, a highly mechanical contest of maintaining macro, eking out advantages with micro and positioning, and stretching out armies as thin as possible to do damage in as many places at once.I actually think you are the minority here From what I read, most other people prefer zvp then every other match ups and it is because how diverse the unit composition can be It should be a BW enthusiast's wet dream, but they hate it for some inexplicable reason. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:28 Nebuchad wrote: Yeah but the execution of chess tactics isn't hard. It's not hard to threaten a fork or a skewer. It's hard to create a position where your opponent has no choice but to fall to these tactics. That's why it doesn't really make sense to put this under mechanics. "I can see the combinations as well as Alekhine, but I cannot get to the same positions." ~Rudolf Spielmann. Alekhine was world champion in chess for 15+ years. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:28 Nebuchad wrote: Yeah but the execution of chess tactics isn't hard. It's not hard to threaten a fork or a skewer. It's hard to create a position where your opponent has no choice but to fall to these tactics. That's why it doesn't really make sense to put this under mechanics. Eh? But I was talking about sc2, or did I misunderstood the post I quoted? It also clearly mentions sc2... <.< edit: On October 15 2013 01:26 ETisME wrote: the option of tactics is limited for a player's tactical mind as well. for example, bomber can do a HSM medivac suicide move and only him has done it so far because no others have the tactical mind like he has. honestly this is just arguing for the balance between rewarding a faster player or a more tactical and strategic player. Right now he is arguing for 80% should be for a better mechanic player, but by mechanics, he means a player who can execute a game plan better, not a player who can play faster, which sounds to me, that is a better tactical player because faster doesn't mean you are executing better. The lack of a player's tactical mind can be compensated by a good coach though, so I wouldn't say that it is a limiting factor. | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:26 ETisME wrote: the option of tactics is limited for a player's tactical mind as well. for example, bomber can do a HSM medivac suicide move and only him has done it so far because no others have the tactical mind like he has. honestly this is just arguing for the balance between rewarding a faster player or a more tactical and strategic player. Right now he is arguing for 80% should be for a better mechanic player, but by mechanics, he means a player who can execute a game plan better, not a player who can play faster, which sounds to me, that is a better tactical player because faster doesn't mean you are executing better. No people are misunderstanding again... Faster/better mechanics/tactics should be the 80% of the skill cap as we saw in BW. 20% of the game should be overall strategy such as openings, late game strategy etc. Once again a plan is a strategy mechanics is executing the strategy through being fast/tactical/precise etc As I said earlier an example of a strategy is "I am going to go 2 rax pressure early on in TvP' Then the mechanics are the running low hp units back/focus firing/positioning. I am claiming that there is not enough of this in SC2 for many reasons. The AI is to effective. The resources in the game really only make it so you only need 3 bases. And the terrible terrible damage makes battles end to quickly for a players superior micro to turn it around. With the current state of SC2 the pro players have gotten to a point in the game where they are to close to the skill cieling cap in the game(I am not saying anybody's perfect) because the game does not have as high of skill ceiling cap to make it as competitive and cut throat as it could be at the pro level. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:38 ETisME wrote: I actually think you are the minority here From what I read, most other people prefer zvp then every other match ups and it is because how diverse the unit composition can be I don't think so, lol. I think - "most people prefer ZvT now compared to the shitfest it used to be," is more accurate. But I still think ZvT is and will be (no matter the "balance-state,") the matchup that draws all the gamers to the yard. I mean, I'm not capable of providing stream numbers, but I would not be surprised if viewer fluctuations coincided with MU with ZvT at the top (obviously this isn't completely accurate overall since player popularity/time/tournament bracket has a lot to do with it too). | ||
|
ETisME
12541 Posts
What I meant is that while chess says "if he goes there I go there" is mechanics, it is not the same as the mechanics defined by sc2 which is micro and macro faster. And so his argument for sc2 to become 80 percent mechanics is wrong | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:43 RampancyTW wrote: As a corollary to this, I really enjoy when the BW enthusiasts complain about ZvZ being a roach wars matchup when roach wars are, at their core, a highly mechanical contest of maintaining macro, eking out advantages with micro and positioning, and stretching out armies as thin as possible to do damage in as many places at once. It should be a BW enthusiast's wet dream, but they hate it for some inexplicable reason. I am not BW elitist, in fact i just got into broodwar, but its not really the same at all. Roachwars arent about micro, they are only about positioning BEFORE the engagement happens and then fungal, fungal, infested terran. I agree that it can be fun (when some highlvl zerg play it) cause of multitasking with small roach groups, but the actuall big engagements are about as bad as it can get in sc2. Blingwars are way more fun to watch and to some extend i think muta ling was more fun too, (i think it rewarded better mechanics way more than roachwars). | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:43 RampancyTW wrote: As a corollary to this, I really enjoy when the BW enthusiasts complain about ZvZ being a roach wars matchup when roach wars are, at their core, a highly mechanical contest of maintaining macro, eking out advantages with micro and positioning, and stretching out armies as thin as possible to do damage in as many places at once. It should be a BW enthusiast's wet dream, but they hate it for some inexplicable reason. Gonna have to disagree. Roach itself is about the most bland, boring unit you'll ever see. Micro consists soley of getting a better arc. Roach wars are actually, macro simplified. You can't even make a COMPARISON to ZvZ in BW so I don't understand why you would try. One is fast paced, immediate, cutthroat and deadly (the thing that compares to this is ling/bane wars in SC2 - you used the wrong comparison) and the other slow, bland and boring... | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:54 Qwyn wrote: I don't think so, lol. I think - "most people prefer ZvT now compared to the shitfest it used to be," is more accurate. But I still think ZvT is and will be (no matter the "balance-state,") the matchup that draws all the gamers to the yard. I mean, I'm not capable of providing stream numbers, but I would not be surprised if viewer fluctuations coincided with MU with ZvT at the top (obviously this isn't completely accurate overall since player popularity/time/tournament bracket has a lot to do with it too). Exactly, even though ZvT is horrible right now if you back to good times of TvZ pre infest/BL the MU was by far the best thing weve had in SC2 by a LONGSHOT. You had tons of different openings all with there own strategy's people had to think about. The mechanics were grueling micro managing the tank leap frog push with drops and making sure you always knew where the Z army was. The creep spread the splits, the muta harass, the positioning, the economy. It was insane and it was mainly mechanics so the better player would usually win and it created many amazing games. Then infestor/Bl came about and it turned more into a strategy game. The Z would just turtle and then get the unbeatable army that required significantly less mechanics to execute and TvZ was gone. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:57 Qwyn wrote: Not trying to compare it to BW ZvZ. Just saying that is pretty much a giant mechanics fest with both players trying to eke out tiny advantages wherever they can.Gonna have to disagree. Roach itself is about the most bland, boring unit you'll ever see. Micro consists soley of getting a better arc. Roach wars are actually, macro simplified. You can't even make a COMPARISON to ZvZ in BW so I don't understand why you would try. One is fast paced, immediate, cutthroat and deadly (the thing that compares to this is ling/bane wars in SC2 - you used the wrong comparison) and the other slow, bland and boring... The big engagements themselves might not be "exciting" but it's very easy to see who the better player is in roach wars. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On October 15 2013 02:04 RampancyTW wrote: Not trying to compare it to BW ZvZ. Just saying that is pretty much a giant mechanics fest with both players trying to eke out tiny advantages wherever they can. The big engagements themselves might not be "exciting" but it's very easy to see who the better player is in roach wars. Well you're arguing the standpoint of BW enthusiasts - who are going to compare it to their own variant of the MU...so...It's only natural such a comparison would be made. There's a distinct lack of excitement in roach wars - perhaps why BW players aren't enthusiastic about it: - They have waaay more macro in all of their respective MUs. - They have unit engagements and interactions that are exciting (in the case of ZvZ, explosive! They might like ling/bane wars ^_^). The thing is that the way players in roach wars "eke out advantages," are boring, they are minimal and they are not varied. Two players macroing well? It comes down to the advantages gained and lost before the roach transition - and then enagement and positioning. That's it. Most of the time the game is won or lost before the roach wars even begin. If the opposing player turtles up then, once again, it's a game of who can have the better arc. That's hardly exciting or variant micro/macro. I think you consider the BW player to be a mindless automaton who only wants micro/macro - and does not care for the QUALITY of it? I'd argue the reverse ^_^. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12541 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:54 Qwyn wrote: I don't think so, lol. I think - "most people prefer ZvT now compared to the shitfest it used to be," is more accurate. But I still think ZvT is and will be (no matter the "balance-state,") the matchup that draws all the gamers to the yard. I mean, I'm not capable of providing stream numbers, but I would not be surprised if viewer fluctuations coincided with MU with ZvT at the top (obviously this isn't completely accurate overall since player popularity/time/tournament bracket has a lot to do with it too). I am fairly sure more people think zvp is better than ZvT now though, I watch a lot and post a lot lol It is an improved matchup, don't get me wrong but a lot of people are bored with bio mine style which happens 24/7 in all maps. Lack of unit diversity and too much on momentum rather than small run by pressure and players with different style and adapting to different maps. I think this is also why biomine is getting phrased out and make room for mech and bio tank buffs to keep the match up more diverse | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
I'm reminded of football practice last week where I ended up injured early on, having to be content watching the others play for an hour. I thought that was illuminating, I was in a critical mood and I could constantly point out mistakes someone would make: trying to shoot a ball while off-balance, doing a defensive pass in a risky situation, a feint that was too telegraphed and obvious, not electing to shield the ball properly during a tense encounter. Football is considered almost purely an athletic sport, with strategy being the purview of coaches more so than the individual players. Nevertheless, all the mistakes that I mentioned just now are the result of flawed decision making. I think it's difficult to separate mechanical ability from decision making skills. It's true that there are some purely physical aspects such as strength and speed, but in many situations the main skill is what people usually call game intelligence or game sense. Consider that the most efficient brood war players weren't necessarily the ones that could execute the most actions per minute. Rewarding mechanical ability doesn't lead to rewarding one-dimensional players or robots. I think being adept at e.g. prioritizing your attention shows more profound understanding of strategic concepts than deciding which standard build order you want to try this map. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On October 15 2013 02:08 ETisME wrote: I am fairly sure more people think zvp is better than ZvT now though, I watch a lot and post a lot lol It is an improved matchup, don't get me wrong but a lot of people are bored with bio mine style which happens 24/7 in all maps. Lack of unit diversity and too much on momentum rather than small run by pressure and players with different style and adapting to different maps. I think this is also why biomine is getting phrased out and make room for mech and bio tank buffs to keep the match up more diverse Well without anything more concrete to give I can only stand on my own opinions, which aren't worth much. The lack of unit diversity you mention ISN'T a problem though! The game has always been like this. It's about unit DEPTH, not the amount of units used... I'd say that ZvT is only evolving to be more complex and nuanced. Sure some break up might be good, but these sorts of pressures are only good in the long run. If bio-mine gets phased out it will be to mine-based mech, and I "pray to God" that this does not happen. It's like infestor broodlord for both sides. There's this idea that somehow compositons get stale and that things should be mixed up...do that enough and people will always want to go back to the core of the MU...It's highly mechanical (high influence of player skill), and I would say the opposite of ZvP (which after a certain point, plays to reads and chance/luck). I just don't think that's right. ZvT has the most action of any MU barring PvP/TvP over a longer period of time and sustained constantly, it is asymettric and has a high mechanical skillcap. How that can compare to ZvP I have no idea. As I said, compared to ZvP of WoL, by hell it's more interesting than it was, but other than that... | ||
|
Headshot
United States1656 Posts
On October 15 2013 00:25 KeksX wrote: Im sorry but this shows exactly why this discussion is useless. You post a quote, uncomplete and with relevant context missing, dont even mention who said it and the make a big conclusion you dont even tell us. You expect a decent discussion out of this? You expect constructive posts after this? You people will never learn. Your subjective "arguments" and sensationalist opinions are not helping at all. Xeris made a decent post and instead of using it as a basis you just shit on whatever topic is hot in sc2. You, my friend, are the true indication of the current state of sc2. The exact quote was "Naniwa's micro is legendary!" from one of the two casters of the finals, I'm not familiar with either of them, or I could tell you exactly who said it. And as far as "you just shit on whatever topic is hot in sc2" goes, lack of micro, counterplay, and a high mechanical skill ceiling has been a hot topic in Starcraft 2 discussions since its release. To be completely honest with you, at the risk of totally invalidating my input, yesterday's finals between Naniwa and Life was the first complete series of Starcraft 2 games that I've watched since 2011, but reading through this thread and discovering that people are still arguing over the same bullshit they were in 2010/2011 is hilarious. Either Blizzard has made little to no progress, or the common Team Liquid poster will never be happy with the state of the game, most likely a little of both. I frankly agree 100% with the OP, and have been disappointed in how Blizzard has handled Starcraft 2's creation, balance, Battle.net 2.0, customer interactions/input, etc, and nothing has changed in four years. I wish Starcraft 2 good live up to its predecessor, but until something changes, I wont regret moving on to greener pastures. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On October 15 2013 02:17 Headshot wrote: These "hot topics" are all complaints about lack of player ability, not about the game.The exact quote was "Naniwa's micro is legendary!" from one of the two casters of the finals, I'm not familiar with either of them, or I could tell you exactly who said it. And as far as "you just shit on whatever topic is hot in sc2" goes, lack of micro, counterplay, and a high mechanical skill ceiling has been a hot topic in Starcraft 2 discussions since its release. And to be completely honest with you, at the of totally invalidating my input, yesterday's finals between Naniwa and Life was the first complete series of Starcraft 2 games that I've watched since 2011, but reading through this thread and discovering that people are still arguing over the same bulllshit they were in 2010/2011 is hilarious. People have been complaining about the skill ceiling being too low since release. Current mid-masters players would stomp on 2011 pros via execution alone. And I have no idea why you're equating terrible casting with terrible gameplay. | ||
| ||
