|
On December 11 2013 21:46 papaz wrote:
My opinions:
- Depth of micro is not enough
- Whoever wins the first big fight tend to win the game - comebacks are virtually non existent
- Units die too fast so it doesn't matter if you are Flash/Jaedong/Soulkey. If you happen to not pay attention for a sec enough units can be killed so that you more or less already have lost
- Games reach max limits very fast. Macro is easy and not rewarding so players like Flash "can't outmacro" the opponent just as easy because the difference between the worst pro and best pro at macro isn't that big
So I guess it's a combination of not enough depth and the volalite units vs too much dps.
Ya these are all very strong points and I believe the DPS is the major fault in the game because its really high and makes it really difficult to come back from any game when you can lose your units faster then you can react and replenish.
|
On December 13 2013 06:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 06:34 zezamer wrote:On December 12 2013 17:17 ArcadeR wrote:
Wait for LotV..then wait three more years (at least..lets say five+++)...then start complaining. Thx. Sc2 will be so dead if they wait 5 years to fix the issues people have been complaining since early-WoL *Woosh* Name your "consistent" player from BW. Then figure out how many years after BW's release that player started winning tournaments.
I would name Nada, although I cant tell you how many years after the games release it took. Its an unfair comparison to measure it in time because the broodwar pro scene developed slowly and with much effort, whereas when sc2 came out the infrastructure and acceptability of "esports" was largely in place. Lets not compare Sc2 vs Bw again. In this thread the two games are unrelated and it makes no sense to compare. The only factors you can look at for this sort of thing are in Starcraft 2 and I think the OP did a reasonable job stating the more obvious reasons. such as the speed of the game, battles and the unforgivable nature of the game.
Although it can be frustrating when your idols lose, lets recognize the fact that nearly anyone can win tournaments keeps the game, in its own regard, exciting.
|
United States2495 Posts
I think it's because the game is actually balanced. THe winrates are equally distributed right now aren't they? Also, Blizzard is quick to address problems so it keeps esports alive.
|
On December 19 2013 19:52 tshi wrote:
I think it's because the game is actually balanced. THe winrates are equally distributed right now aren't they? Also, Blizzard is quick to address problems so it keeps esports alive.
But what about in a situation where someone makes an innovating strategy that skyrockets their race's win percentage? It's not right if Blizzard intervenes and says "Nope, everything must be even" and makes a patch concerning that. I don't think Blizzard will ever learn.
|
Here are some GSL comparisons:
GSL Ro8 comparison:
+ Show Spoiler +GSL: Players that made it to Ro8:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WHVyvRA.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sSBGWfZ.png) Number of times in GSL Ro8:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Rsa45Od.png)
GSL Ro4 comparison:
+ Show Spoiler +GSL: Players that made it to Ro4:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/817hSdi.png) Number of times in GSL Ro4:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2r21z4x.png)
GSL Ro2 comparison:
+ Show Spoiler +GSL: Players that made it to Ro2:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ly99h5.png) Number of times in GSL Ro2:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fltyLIN.png)
GSL Winners comparison:
+ Show Spoiler +GSL Winners:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eG9sS8g.png) Number of GSL wins:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HPFzCrJ.png)
|
Let's compare the GSLs as these are the only tournaments with steady player pools:
Mvp, NesTea and MC were the only real consistent ones, as they made it 3 or more times to the GSL finals.
Of the recent players, Innovation is looking strong with making it 3 times to the GSL/OSL Ro4.
Also, Soulkey is very consistent with 5 times in a row in the Ro8.
A whopping 69% (36 players out of 52) made it to the Ro4 only once, never to return again.
For the last 11 GSL/OSL finals, we had every time a different winner.
These things will be interesting to follow in 2014:- Can Soulkey and Innovation stay consistent performers?
- Can the new contenders like Maru, Bomber, Dear, soO and sOs make it consistently to the Ro4?
- How many new faces will appear in the Ro4?
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
And more importantly, how many players that aren't actually "new faces" will be considered surprises by the community?
|
On December 20 2013 19:59 Zealously wrote:
And more importantly, how many players that aren't actually "new faces" will be considered surprises by the community?
Everyone who wasn't atleast in a semifinal i would consider a surprise i think
|
On December 20 2013 19:56 urboss wrote:
Also, Soulkey is very consistent with 4 times Ro8 in a row.
5 times... he reached RO8 every single time since GSL S5 of 2012 (RO8 in OSL does count isn't it?)!
On December 20 2013 19:56 urboss wrote:
Of the recent players, Innovation is looking strong with 3 times in a row in the GSL/OSL Ro4.
He did reach RO4 3 times, but not 3 times in a row. He was only top8 in GSL S1 2013 (last WOL GSL) and was only top16 in WCS S3...
|
On December 20 2013 21:06 hipo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2013 19:56 urboss wrote:
Also, Soulkey is very consistent with 4 times Ro8 in a row.
5 times... he reached RO8 every single time since GSL S5 of 2012 (RO8 in OSL does count isn't it?)! Show nested quote +On December 20 2013 19:56 urboss wrote:
Of the recent players, Innovation is looking strong with 3 times in a row in the GSL/OSL Ro4.
He did reach RO4 3 times, but not 3 times in a row. He was only top8 in GSL S1 2013 (last WOL GSL) and was only top16 in WCS S3...
You are right, I had forgotten about the GSL in January, will update the info.
|
On December 11 2013 21:46 papaz wrote:
My opinions:
- Depth of micro is not enough
- Whoever wins the first big fight tend to win the game - comebacks are virtually non existent
- Units die too fast so it doesn't matter if you are Flash/Jaedong/Soulkey. If you happen to not pay attention for a sec enough units can be killed so that you more or less already have lost
- Games reach max limits very fast. Macro is easy and not rewarding so players like Flash "can't outmacro" the opponent just as easy because the difference between the worst pro and best pro at macro isn't that big
So I guess it's a combination of not enough depth and the volalite units vs too much dps.
This pretty much covers everything wrong with this game.
If this game was more like SC:BW except with the current max units per control group (buildings included) this game would be better off.
Macro would still be easy because of this but you could also have something like the manual mining feature of workers (having to manually send them to mine after they are made). This could make macro more challenging having to actually screen capture locations to send workers to mine instead of just hitting sd, s, e.
|
I think a big reason is starcraft 2 skill isn't like other sports. It decays very, very quickly. Think of tennis, Roger Federer has been elite for 10 years, sure he has worked very hard to get to that point, but starcraft 2 players kinda fall of the face of the earth. Think of MKP who was elite for a long period of time, now he is retired. Starcraft 2 has unpredictability built in to it via cheeses and allins, which makes the games exciting to watch, but also means the most skillful people don't always win.
|
On December 21 2013 12:05 Supert0fu wrote:
I think a big reason is starcraft 2 skill isn't like other sports. It decays very, very quickly. Think of tennis, Roger Federer has been elite for 10 years, sure he has worked very hard to get to that point, but starcraft 2 players kinda fall of the face of the earth. Think of MKP who was elite for a long period of time, now he is retired. Starcraft 2 has unpredictability built in to it via cheeses and allins, which makes the games exciting to watch, but also means the most skillful people don't always win.
BW had the same all in's and cheeses but there were some really dominant players for a long time. Maybe not 10 years but relatively to how long the game has been played, a pretty long time
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
If INnoVation or Maru or Soulkey or someone wins everything next year I wonder if anyone will actually be happy
except the one who wins everything of course
|
In other sports there seems to be much more dominance and consistence of single individuals.
e.g.: Vitali Klitschko, Novak Djokovic, Magnus Carlsen, Usain Bolt, etc...
Can we get some actual win rates for top players in other 1v1 games for comparison? I'd like to see Go, Chess, Tennis, MMA, and/or fencing. I wasn't able to find good enough stats, but some exact numbers would be helpful. Saying that "there seems to be much more dominance..." doesn't mean much without some numbers to back it up. Otherwise we can just say that "MKP seemed to dominate for a while," or "MC dominated for a while," and not need to prove it.
|
4713 Posts
I sort of agree with a lot of the problems that have been outlined here.
I am ok with the powering in 10 or so minutes, the accelerated macro mechanics and such, what I can agree with is that it does feel easier to the point you can't really distinguish from the absolute greats.
Bomber, Flash, Innovation, Mvp, MMA when you look at them, all have fantastic macro to the point that if one or more of them executed the same build on the same map and you'd blur out the names you couldn't tell who was playing. Good macro is kind of a standard, not a distinction, which is a bit sad.
I am not happy with is battles being so quick and deciding so much, its often anti-climatic and not as rewarding because you don't feel like the player has much input on how the battle will go because it will end so soon, very little time to micro.
Its also often frustrating to watch a player build up a big lead over exploiting many small mistakes from his opponent and then losing that lead because he made one big mistake (not looking at his army for one second and getting it stormed/fungaled), it just feels wrong, especially since the other guy had already done many mistakes like that but didn't get punished quite as hard.
I think those 3 points mainly added up probably explain why its now impossible to remain dominant and consistent in SC2 as you can in Tennis.
BW also had its curses and cheeses, short series and all-ins, fog of war and what not and yet you had players that dominated for years like NaDa, BoxeR, iloveoov, sAviOr, Bisu, Jaedong, Flash.
In SC2 the closest we ever got to that was 2011 with Mvp.
And yes, we do need some dominant players, they are there to show everybody else that, trough hard work and dedication you can become the absolute best and stay that way for a long time. If the top 30 in the world can all beat any of each other on a given good day it stops feeling like a real skill based game and more on gambling.
Yeah its probably impossible or close to it to win everything on in one year, but having a dominant player that can win 5+ tournaments per year, including the likes of WCS, Blizzcon and DH Winter would do the scene more good then harm. And of course if someone does manage to win all the tournaments he attends during a year that in and of itself would be such an epic storyline that we'd be admiring the guy and praising him to no end for years to come.
|
On December 21 2013 16:00 CutTheEnemy wrote:Show nested quote +In other sports there seems to be much more dominance and consistence of single individuals.
e.g.: Vitali Klitschko, Novak Djokovic, Magnus Carlsen, Usain Bolt, etc... Can we get some actual win rates for top players in other 1v1 games for comparison? I'd like to see Go, Chess, Tennis, MMA, and/or fencing. I wasn't able to find good enough stats, but some exact numbers would be helpful. Saying that "there seems to be much more dominance..." doesn't mean much without some numbers to back it up. Otherwise we can just say that "MKP seemed to dominate for a while," or "MC dominated for a while," and not need to prove it.
To give you an idea about tennis, here is the comparison of all Grand Slam tournaments since 2003:
Comparison of tennis Grand Slams:
+ Show Spoiler +
Roger Federer was just ridiculously consistent for more than a decade.
He made it into the Ro4 of the Grand Slams almost every single time over a period of 9 years.
The same goes for Rafael Nadal on sand, he won the French Open every time except for 2009.
Novak Djokovic is the new dominator.
As previously mentioned, he had a win rate of 90.2% in 2013 (80% counting sets).
|
On December 21 2013 18:34 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2013 16:00 CutTheEnemy wrote:In other sports there seems to be much more dominance and consistence of single individuals.
e.g.: Vitali Klitschko, Novak Djokovic, Magnus Carlsen, Usain Bolt, etc... Can we get some actual win rates for top players in other 1v1 games for comparison? I'd like to see Go, Chess, Tennis, MMA, and/or fencing. I wasn't able to find good enough stats, but some exact numbers would be helpful. Saying that "there seems to be much more dominance..." doesn't mean much without some numbers to back it up. Otherwise we can just say that "MKP seemed to dominate for a while," or "MC dominated for a while," and not need to prove it. To give you an idea about tennis, here is the comparison of all Grand Slam tournaments since 2003: Comparison of tennis Grand Slams:+ Show Spoiler +Roger Federer was just ridiculously consistent for more than a decade. He made it into the Ro4 of the Grand Slams almost every single time over a period of 9 years. The same goes for Rafael Nadal on sand, he won the French Open every time except for 2009. Novak Djokovic is the new dominator. As previously mentioned, he had a win rate of 90.2% in 2013 (80% counting sets).
Wow you can add this on wiki or something ..
|
Because you always can hardcounter things. If someone is too greedy and gets countered he just loses no matter who much worse his opponent is. If you always had to play a Standard macrogame in SC2, the results would probably be more consistent. And don't forget all the Traveling that makes it hard for the Pros to always be in topform.
|
I don't think that micro depth or an overreliance on pure strategy per se is the main problem. Just let me play the devil's advocate here, chess is a game of 100% strategy and mental resilience, and correspondingly, chess results are also quite consistent. I do not think that there has been a recent tournament that carlsen has not won or placed high in. Realistically, although chess has many tournaments in a year, what are the chances that some 2500 elo upstart can dispatch carlsen? I'd say close to zero.
I think the problem is that scouting is harder and more unpredictable than before, leading to much higher volatility, and strategic depth is simply not there. I hesitate to call sc2 a strategy game any longer as it has been a while since we've seen a cool strategy (cough, not proxy oracles) emerge and redefine the metagame. The last cool thing I saw was shy's tempest-storm combo against innovation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T0JjJ2Z.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZWb8Ye4.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5BJ7V3i.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cv0SIB3.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dAOwk7C.png)
