| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
James123
France34 Posts
On December 28 2014 15:58 ninazerg wrote: In an unrelated note, nobody cares about Men's Tennis. For his defense, I think it was a joke as Woman's Tennis is the only thing people watch for obvious reason. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
On December 28 2014 17:40 Cascade wrote: I'll try to explain how I think. The simplest view of a skill ceiling is that at a certain point in skill (the ceiling) any more skill does not improve your chances of winning. This goes for games like tic tac toe. A but more realistic and nuanced model for a game like StarCraft is that at higher skill levels you get diminished return for more skill. Diminished return in a sense of chance to win a game. A kind of soft skill cap. This can happen well before the game is played at mathematical perfection (which will never be achieved by humans of course). That model could then make it harder for a dominating player to appear with highly diminished return, as you would have to be a lot more skilled to get your, say, 70% win rate. So that would be the principle. Then I will not claim to know how far into diminished return hots or bw is (or was in 2005). Seems like ninazerg was more informed, although I didn't quite get the conclusion. Yeah, i kinda understood you were going that way, but didn't for certain. In my opinion, that's all pure speculation. If i can't see a progamer that is able to micro like automatron 2000 while hitting perfect macro, and mindgaming his opponent like a poker player, the argument itself will remain a fallacy in my eyes. There are always a lot of things in any given game that the player could had done better. There is no soft cap, because the skill ceiling is high enough that you won't ever hit it. Why do i make this assumption ? I make my assumption in what i said before, noone plays the game even close to perfection. There is no doubt that playing BW was harder than playing SC2, but there is absolutely noone that can play perfectly SC2 (not even close to it), so what makes you assume that a diminish return on player skill vs in game reward exists ? Genuine question. If that there hasn't been a Bonjwa is why people make that assumption, i would say that's a weak assumption in itself, since it's something that's not only related to the game, but players, timing, era, etc. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On December 28 2014 20:02 Godwrath wrote: There is no doubt that playing BW was harder than playing SC2, but there is absolutely noone that can play perfectly SC2 (not even close to it), so what makes you assume that a diminish return on player skill vs in game reward exists ? People confuse skill floor and skill ceiling all the time. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
Can we please /thread? These are the times I actually wish for the trolls to run rampant, so the mods are forced to close this thread. | ||
|
Dingodile
4136 Posts
On December 28 2014 20:02 Godwrath wrote: There is no doubt that playing BW was harder than playing SC2, but there is absolutely noone that can play perfectly SC2 (not even close to it), so what makes you assume that a diminish return on player skill vs in game reward exists ? In sc2 "if you play with less flaws than your opponent you win". This is so boring to watch that this is the only one way you can win the game. All other rts offers more ways to win such as "you can win (convincing) if you play with your strength (and you can allow to neglect your weakness)". Only Stephano had this "magic" way/play to win so far I have seen. He didnt care to avoid his weakness, only trying to perfect his strenghts. | ||
|
Ej_
47656 Posts
On December 28 2014 21:40 Dingodile wrote: He didnt care to avoid his weakness, only trying to perfect his strenghts. perfect description of Tefel | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On December 28 2014 13:52 lolmlg wrote: "BW players took a while to catch up" should really go without saying. Players like Flash were playing a different game on a professional level for basically the entire opening era of SC2. They played SC2 for a portion of that time but it wasn't their main focus. "The names you'd expect" depends on the observer. I think rational observers had the following two things at the forefront of their minds at the time: 1) SC2 is not BW. It's a different game requiring different aptitudes and players will have different types and levels of affinity for it. Not everyone who enjoys or is talented at BW is going to enjoy or be talented at SC2 so it's absurd to expect the same levels of passion and performance. 2) Notable players typically have a period of dominance followed by an extended period of decline. Some of the biggest names of BW are currently in decline and quite obviously so. There are some notable up-and-comers but it remains to be seen how well their skill-sets will carry over. In the end some of the most notable KeSPA players were those up-and-comers. Players like Innovation and Soulkey who were at the cusps of their respective primes. But as players like soO ultimately demonstrated, it was a bit foolhardy to have "expectations". You're missing the point. That article specifically stated: I am saying that there are 300 current pros and semi-pros that have the potential to come in and dominate SC2 at any moment, with a latency of a few months from the day they switch. And again, in direct contradiction of your comment about Flash: The "different game" argument applies to 99.9% of progamers, but not for special players like Jaedong and Flash. The game doesn't matter. Whether it's BW or SC2 or checkers or minesweeper, certain players are so good they will always be at the top. Didn't happen. It took the best part of a year for most KeSPA BW pros to catch up outside of a handful of special cases; and they most definitely did not "dominate" after a couple of months. Further, Flash and Jaedong took a long, long time to come up to par with everyone else. Citing that article makes the person doing it look extremely foolish. | ||
|
ClueClueClue
Sweden1203 Posts
On December 28 2014 21:25 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: The racetrack called; they want their dead horses back. Can we please /thread? These are the times I actually wish for the trolls to run rampant, so the mods are forced to close this thread. I don't understand why it hasn't been closed already... the "BW is harder/better than sc2!!!!!" attitude is very poorly disguised in this thread. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On December 28 2014 20:02 Godwrath wrote: Yeah, i kinda understood you were going that way, but didn't for certain. In my opinion, that's all pure speculation. If i can't see a progamer that is able to micro like automatron 2000 while hitting perfect macro, and mindgaming his opponent like a poker player, the argument itself will remain a fallacy in my eyes. There are always a lot of things in any given game that the player could had done better. There is no soft cap, because the skill ceiling is high enough that you won't ever hit it. Why do i make this assumption ? I make my assumption in what i said before, noone plays the game even close to perfection. There is no doubt that playing BW was harder than playing SC2, but there is absolutely noone that can play perfectly SC2 (not even close to it), so what makes you assume that a diminish return on player skill vs in game reward exists ? Genuine question. If that there hasn't been a Bonjwa is why people make that assumption, i would say that's a weak assumption in itself, since it's something that's not only related to the game, but players, timing, era, etc. Right, I'll try my best to address what you ask. Again, I can't say for sure, but I feel that there are not that many things that really separate the best few players from the second best players, that has a large imapct on the probability of winning the game. Some mechanics are too "easy", such as injects, mule drops or supply blocks, that everyone are doing close enough to perfect that it doesn't influence the game that much. So before you get scandalised, I don't mean that those things don't affect any games, I just say that going from 90% average inject efficiency to 95% wont make you win tournaments all of a sudden. The occasional game yes, it may increase your winrate from 50% to 53%, but it's not like going from 40% inject to 70% in silver, which will likely bring you up a league on itself. I don't think that superior injects by itself is enough to lift an otherwise standard pro player (50% winrate) from average to "bonjwa" winrates. Other mechanics that would be included in a mathematically perfect game are just out of reach for the current players, such as individually microing units with 10k APM like some bots do. These techniques are equally out of reach for all players, and also don't separate the best from the second best players today. This is why I say that being far from perfection is perfectly consistent with a soft skill cap. I guess it'd be a skill plateu if you want, but in practice for humans, a soft skill ceiling. Then there are things that are different between players, like multitasking drops (or defense of drops), marine/bane splits, forcefields (or are forcefields "easy"?  ), etc. These do have an affect on many games, but also don't really come into play in many games. Even if one players has better marine splits, it may not always be the difference between winning and losing. It is not clear how much these skills actually affect your average winrate. They may be a big deal. And of course many would argue that the major factor that brings a player from 50% to 70% is strategy and decision making.So on one hand we have the differentiating skills: - minor differences coming from skill in "easy" tasks (injects, supply blocks, ...) - skills that are pushing the capability of the pros (marine splits, ling-bane micro, multitasking, ...) - and the strategic skill. On the other hand we have the luck factor - mainly choise of build orders I guess - but also choise of attack paths - harass timings - timing of army movements in fog of war - external factors such as mentality, sleep, headache, etc that will always bring the winrates towards 50%. So if a much better player comes along, with a significantly higher skill than the rest of the field in one or several of the categories, will his superior differentiating skills be enough to bring his winrate to the "bonjwa" 70%, despite the luck factors holding him back? In BW it seems like it happened a few times over a decade or so. In todays hots? No idea. In lotv? Even less idea. So now next step is to discuss the differentiating skills, and exactly how large impact they have on your winrate. Maybe compare them between bw and hots?  Maybe even discuss if we can remove some of the randomness, which effectively would allow more space for skilled players, as you can maintain, and win from, a smaller advantage more consistently. | ||
|
Deleted User 261926
960 Posts
On December 28 2014 05:14 Charoisaur wrote: right, because the kespa players dominate sc2 so hard now. Just look at code S almost every player there came with the kespa switch to sc2 ... oh wait... HotS GSL: 1.Soulkey vs Innovation (kespa vs kespa) 2.Dear vs Soo (k vs k) 3.Zest vs Soo (k vs k) 4.Zest vs Parting (k vs esf, global championship) 5.Classic vs Soo (k vs k) 6.Innovation vs Soo (k vs k) 11 times kespa appears, 1 time esf appears. | ||
|
Unsane
Canada170 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
what people probably don't know is that i played a lot of WoL. like, a LOT. probably close to 1000 games by the end of season 1. i wasn't great, but if i'm allowed to toot my own horn i was pretty good. there were several things that eventually disenchanted me enough to quit playing the game. believe it or not early WoL actually had some traces of reliable timing attacks. early game, for the most part was stable enough that you could try to work out and come close to a standard build. one of those reasons was blizzards constant patching, and not the frequency of the patching per se (although that was an issue) but the way they patched. the problem was anytime you would come close to a stable build, blizzard would patch something with a completely game disruptive method and you would have to start entirely over. now, you could say that this should be the norm for a new game that is in the process of being balanced, and i could agree with that. eventually, though, it became apparent that blizzard just had no idea what they were doing. the elimination of bbs, in particular is something that i believe was extremely short-sighted. their method of patching out what they saw as early game imbalances became a sad motif though. none of the patches really showed any kind of finesse or intricacy, which is needed to create a game that relies on such intricacies. at one point you could rely on something being patched if you saw enough complaints about it in the forum. it didn't help that, at the time, most popular streamers / personalities / players were whiney losers. i'd like to take this opportunity to state that to my credit (or discredit) that i played terran in sc2. in early WoL many people considered terran to be imbalanced (or overpowered). but to be perfectly honest with you, i could've told you this before the game even came out. it's 90% of the reason why i chose terran in the first place. ANYONE WITH A BRAIN COULD'VE TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE SC2 CAME OUT. if terran were to retain its characteristics as the aggressor in every matchup (aka the one who most decides engagements), this was bound to happen. in a new game, where attack options seem unlimited, the defender will always have to be more prepared and be more proactive in scouting. ALWAYS. at least, until a standard build is able to be worked out. except that there was never any time for this to take place, because of the constant disruptive patching. the last straw for me as a serious player was the nerf to thor timing attacks that would've really only worked on blizzard's terrible maps. to their credit the map design has improved, but the short-sighted change destroyed possible pivotal parts of the game (another example of this was the morrow reaper nerf which was again probably largely in part to completely awful maps). i mean you can say that these were all necessary and that bw had the same weird fixes that were huge and are now considered standard. the difference is blizzard is still patching sc2 using this methodology. look at how mutas or reapers magically gained the ability to regenerate hp. i remember one of the arguments for sc2 at its debut was that they wanted to make action apparent to the casual viewer. someone try explaining why the reaper and only the reaper has the ability to regenerate hp for terran, or why the hellbat as a mechanical unit can be healed by a medivac. it makes zero sense. so blizzard doesn't want to add muta micro because it's harder for people to understand it (or whatever the hell their reason is now) but they are completely fine in giving it random regeneration and making phoenixes and void rays the only units that can attack while moving? giving every unit a special ability just throws all that casual spectating out the window. can you imagine tasteless and artosis in the early days of gomtv bw, imagine if it were sc2 and they had to explain every damn ability in every damn game every damn time it was used. bw was difficult for the beginner to understand because of the immense amount of depth which the casters tried to fill in. try explaining every goddamn special ability in sc2 as it's being used. so what we have now are completely pigeonholed units, early game aggressive build orders that have been gimped to all hell (thus negating any difference between risky and safe play), and a flurry of early game harass units to compensate for that EXCEPT all those units do is throw the early game into a constant state of flux because you dont cut mining to get reapers or oracles out faster. they are simply designed to be used at that time and nothing else and the damage you do with them doesnt even out at a certain point because you took no risk. if i 1 gate reaver in bw i HAVE to do some damage to enter midgame on even footing. does this happen in sc2? in bw if i wanted to go muta i could 2 hatch or 3 hatch depending on what i felt like doing. 2 hatch sacrifices more economy for more chance at damage or for earlier map control and 3 hatch is more economy favored. can you cut probes to get oracles out faster? can you delay oracles and still have them be effective? i'm guessing that to a large extent that you cannot. taking player decision out of a game like sc2 is what makes it so completely poor in my eyes to play. the best part is the nail in the coffin is basically the 12 worker starting point proposed in lotv and FORCING constant expansions. there are no decisions to expand anymore. you just have to, or mine out and die. i told people constantly in WoL that the despite it's pitfalls the game had potential. in HoTS i was still convinced if they made major changes LoTV would be salvagable. now i am just left with the sad, sad reality. the franchise that played probably the largest role in making ESPARTS mainstream will fizzle out because it did not stay true to itself. | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On December 28 2014 21:40 Dingodile wrote: In sc2 "if you play with less flaws than your opponent you win". This is so boring to watch that this is the only one way you can win the game. All other rts offers more ways to win such as "you can win (convincing) if you play with your strength (and you can allow to neglect your weakness)". Only Stephano had this "magic" way/play to win so far I have seen. He didnt care to avoid his weakness, only trying to perfect his strenghts. Maru, Inno, Life, Parting are all doing what you say. Just open your eyes instead of believing Stephano is some kind of unique incarnation. | ||
|
wherehavethe
Belarus1 Post
On December 28 2014 03:06 CosmicSpiral wrote: Well, yes and no. Flash necessarily had top-tier mechanics to be a dominant player, but they were not the defining aspect of his gameplay. He wasn't even head and shoulders above the competition in how many clicks he could squash into a minute. Flash's APM was only in the low 300s and he was considered a somewhat "slow" player. Anyway, the OP has a misinformed concept of mechanics so the point is moot. make statement about his mechanics while commenting on one aspect of mechanics and not even giving source. anyway, you have a misinformed concept of mechanics so the point is moot. On December 28 2014 03:47 ZombieFrog wrote: BW was a more limited scene, largely in korea only and before e-sports was anything major. Now? Even if someone wins a bunch of tournaments no one player is going to be winning them all, so people just aren't going to call them bonjwa. bw was a much larger scene than sc2. sc1 was very major. On December 28 2014 03:48 Friedobert wrote: OP calling for the removal of queuing is pretty much the sad Qlimax of a very one dimensional line of thoughts. for example, mechanics develop with playing, thus somebody that puts time in bw benefited just like someone who plays sc2, as you said. making the basic mechanics of the game easier was a step in the right direction by blizzard. beginners having it easier results in a bigger player base. sc2 is still in the Grrrrrr phase thanks to blizzards expansion policy. wait 5 years and your flash will come. whether making the mechanics easier is good on the whole is one deep discussion. it can be great if you have a very deep interesting strategic background to a game like go is, it could be a good or bad decision. while if its a narrow, heavy variance, shallow onedimensional game like sc2 its guaranteed to be negative to any kind of competetive situation if one is to derive joy from observing the game. imagine h ow pong would look if it was played ocmpetetively if one cant see how sc2 has more coinflippyness and less depth than sc1. beginners having it easier may result in a bigger playerbase, you dont know that. making a worse game and hav ing a bad impact on competetive games has a detrimental effect however. and saying that waiting 5 years and an identical movement in two extremely different situations will happen is the very sad climax of rediculous logic On December 28 2014 04:26 Charoisaur wrote: Mvp was a bonjwa. also other players like life, taeja, zest and INnoVation were very close to a bonjwa. If soO had won all his finals he would have been the most dominant bonjwa of all time. It's definitely not impossible for sc2 to have a bonjwa. bonjwa should be defined by how muc hbetter than your oposition you are. its not measured by the results like people often write. if a player is say the 500th best palyer i nthe world and is 1% against the best player he could potentially meet any kind of resultbased bonjwa criterion you propose. there could be someone as far above the competition as the bonjwas of sc1 were at times, but that is very likely to be unbelieveably unlikely with the variance at the top of the game On December 28 2014 04:26 Erik.TheRed wrote: by your logic adding any artificial handicaps should allow for a bonjwa to rise again. so why not start a tournament where players can only use one hand? but I think most people would say having a one-handed tournament would be stupid and silly (albeit having some novelty at first) since it does not really create an environment where the game is evolving on a mental/strategic level. so instead of regressing to a frustrating UI, why not promote interesting and challenging improvements to the dynamics of gameplay/strategy? yes adding handicaps to a game being played so close to optimal as sc2 would make for ceilings to be open ed and widened in specific key areas of the game (such as if one player was much better with the mouse plyaing with one hand, the actions he would be able to do would have an exponential effect on things) and make the difference in winrates go up, making an intrinsically more skilled player accelerate away in winpercentage from lower quality players. a tournament with one hand has no intrinsic bad value on it. it may be a good or bad thing based on actual analysis, not mere intuitive responses from random people on a forum. why would the game not evolve on a strategic/mental level? regressing to frustrating ui? you mean harder ui, theres nothing intrinsically worse about it. you just attempt to put it in a b ad light. theres no law about more difficult=worse. why not play with aimbots in cs? its so frustrating ui to have to aim the mouse around, just go on reaction speed alone. then that can be described as frustrating so lets make the characters instashoot at sight. regressing to a frustrating ui. as if you decides the magic line. why not just enable smartsplitting then and all types of possible enhances to the ai one can think of. you dont know the right amount of handicap there should be to this or any given game, we can only speculate and attempt some sort of analysing. theres nothing intrinsically valueable about the current ai situation in sc2, people only talk like that because its the status quo. yes improving the game itself is positive too obviously. just as is thinking that there is pros and cons of changing the mechanics of the game. unfortunately blizzard isnt listening so were stuck with a very similar game as it was from the start. On December 28 2014 04:29 ZigguratOfUr wrote: There's a lot of reasons why there hasn't been a SCII bonjwa, but the lowered apm requirements aren't one of them. The top BW players weren't and aren't differentiated from the other pro players by their mechanics, but rather by other less tangible things such as strategic approach. source for first sentance? yes of course they were differentiated by their mechanics. anything that one can say is part of the game that requires an activity of sorts is an area to be differentiated in. On December 28 2014 05:14 Charoisaur wrote: right, because the kespa players dominate sc2 so hard now. Just look at code S almost every player there came with the kespa switch to sc2 ... oh wait... huh? yes they do, look up any statistics at all. and how exactly do you think one dominates a game like sc2? i dont understand where you people come from. mvp dominated a game with no wrist while he wasnt even top30 in sc1. he wouldnt exactly have been close to the top if he would have continued in sc1. this isnt exaclty a debate. good insult. oh wait... kespa is 15-12 in this code s On December 28 2014 06:01 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: But it does sound like a better game. Why force players to have higher APM just for an artificial sense of superior [technical and not strategic] skill? If no one can put in the time to prepare and practice and be smarter than other players, then does someone deserve to be a bonjwa just because they are better physically and have higher APM and multitasking? You could argue yes, but I'd prefer a focus on strategic than technical skill. yes more strategic depth sound like a better game. and he already told you it sounds like a better game. yes indeed, why force people to have higher apm? sc2 is a joke, i agree. we have tools to make it much easier! lets make it even more coinflippy and less margin for errors for more variance. in fact on further thought, were going to have to blow up the whole scene because no matter what we do, if we still have some area where we will have to move our mouse we will force players to have higher apm just for an artificial sense of superior skill. just stop playing and move over to go. because thats what you want, because you put an artificial line that sc2 has the ideal mechanical difficulty level for this situation and climate and theres no improvement to be made. more strategic depth is very often a better game. the mechanical difficulty of a game has no correalation with that. On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote: It totally is. And I already feel like there are some horridly misinformed comparisons of SC1 to SC2. The OP makes the wrong assumption that SC2 isn't demanding enough from the players, which is a basic false-logic appeal to the 'skill ceiling' argument. What many people, including the above poster, fail to realize is that StarCraft: BroodWar professional gamers often had (but not always) an incredible grasp of strategy, positioning, economy management, and everything outside of pure dexterity skills. That being said, every top SC2 player in first-person has incredible mechanical skills, which is one of the elements that puts them above the rest of the stock of players. demanding enough? what does that even mean? he also didnt say that, he said its not as demanding. pretty much every skill area has had their skill ceilings cut. and whats wrong with the logic of the skill ceiling? On December 28 2014 09:51 Cascade wrote: Then whether the skill ceiling is higher or not, I am not sure. It is my impression that it is higher in bw, but I feel the subject is very open for debate. its not On December 28 2014 11:16 Godwrath wrote: I will bite. How bigger the skill ceiling is, is completely irrelevant if noone can reach the top in none of the games. its not. as areas approach bottoming out and in certain cases does so the additional returns players make over a set amount of time practiced decreases On December 28 2014 13:11 epi wrote: Spoken like somebody who never watched Jaedong and Flash in BW. They both had "good enough" mechanics, but that's not why they were great. Flash in particular had mediocre APM and below-average micro - and anyone who's watched any of Flash's SC2 games in the last few months should know that too. i highly doubt he had below average micro. and apm measured in match is different from effective apm and potential apm. he could have had higher had he played slightly different style or made concious decision to balance his play to play slightly faster and slightly less accurate. any number of those could produce quite different outcomes, we cant know what his apm was. | ||
|
Lokian
United States699 Posts
the main reason why is because the amount of pro players that compete is more than even double the size of what BW had. more competition, less consistency, less competition, someone just dominates. APM, mechanics, design play a good role. being able to select more units and buildings allows more competition. its true, sc2 is an easier game mechanically, but more difficult to win. you might say, its more difficult in terms of competition and design compared to bw. we will only see a bonjwa when sc2's scene has so little players left or some organization like kespa will come out and make you believe in one. | ||
|
DuckloadBlackra
225 Posts
On December 29 2014 03:16 sAsImre wrote: Maru, Inno, Life, Parting are all doing what you say. Just open your eyes instead of believing Stephano is some kind of unique incarnation. None of those guys Maru, Inno, Life, Parting have that "magic" way/play that he's referring to. I agree Stephano is the only one that ever had that. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
| ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On December 29 2014 10:57 DuckloadBlackra wrote: None of those guys Maru, Inno, Life, Parting have that "magic" way/play that he's referring to. I agree Stephano is the only one that ever had that. If you can't see Life or Maru very own way to make stuff that they're the only one able to pull off there is a problem I think. Or you just like watching white dudes playing sc2. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby2492 Mlord489 FrodaN487 mouzStarbuck261 Fuzer  228Pyrionflax195 summit1g153 ArmadaUGS103 C9.Mang096 Maynarde31 |
|
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
OSC
The PondCast
LAN Event
Replay Cast
LAN Event
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
