|
What do you guys think of this theory?
Because Blizzard incorporated queuing into starcraft 2, APM has become much less important. (APM is still very important but just less so.)
In starcraft 1, without queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 400 APM to attain a certain level of control. In contrast, in starcraft 2, with queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 300 APM to attain the same level of control. Since, there are more pros with 300 APM, it's less likely you'll get a bonjwa. On the other hand, the players would can get 400 APM are very few so bonjwa's are possible.
Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. Unfortunately, anyone can eventually figure out the counters to builds. Preparation has become that much important and this has leveled out the playing field a bit because it becomes a matter of how much time you put in. It relies less on latent ability.
We see this in practice. Jaedong and Flash with their insane multitasking and APM were able to attain dominance for a long time. In starcraft 2, it's definitely helped them get into the top 20. But, no one will ever attain bonjwa status.
Blizzard for the next patch or game, should think about either 2 things. It should get rid of queuing so that APM is more important. Or, it should add another component to the game play so that additional APM is required.
|
you could use the queue in scbw. it's multi building selection that appeared in sc2.
FlaSh didn't dominate bw because of his mechanics.
|
I think it's more on the balance of the maps and the three races.
|
Too many bo wins, there is way more randomness in the game and the most important thing, the game isn't even complete
|
There is more luck involved in sc2. Luck seems to be increasingly more important in new games such as the MOBA's and Hearthstone.
|
On December 28 2014 02:31 sAsImre wrote:
you could use the queue in scbw. it's multi building selection that appeared in sc2.
FlaSh didn't dominate bw because of his mechanics.
This. Reading a game well, reacting accordingly to what you read and being able to plan strategical moves in advance/anticipate what your opponent is doing is what makes a true bonjwa.
|
On December 28 2014 02:37 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:31 sAsImre wrote:
you could use the queue in scbw. it's multi building selection that appeared in sc2.
FlaSh didn't dominate bw because of his mechanics.
This. Reading a game well, reacting accordingly to what you read and being able to plan strategical moves in advance/anticipate what your opponent is doing is what makes a true bonjwa.
and now you insert the innovation interview where he says that he's better at sc2 because there is much less strategical finesse required. (his own words)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/418616-interview-with-stx_innovation#1
pretty cool itw from the robot anyway 
|
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!)
|
On December 28 2014 02:40 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:37 OtherWorld wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 sAsImre wrote:
you could use the queue in scbw. it's multi building selection that appeared in sc2.
FlaSh didn't dominate bw because of his mechanics.
This. Reading a game well, reacting accordingly to what you read and being able to plan strategical moves in advance/anticipate what your opponent is doing is what makes a true bonjwa. and now you insert the innovation interview where he says that he's better at sc2 because there is much less strategical finesse required. (his own words) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/418616-interview-with-stx_innovation#1pretty cool itw from the robot anyway
no, he doesn't say that. he says he can use his mechanics because the game is faster, which can make up for his lack of finesse
|
On December 28 2014 02:46 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:40 sAsImre wrote:On December 28 2014 02:37 OtherWorld wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 sAsImre wrote:
you could use the queue in scbw. it's multi building selection that appeared in sc2.
FlaSh didn't dominate bw because of his mechanics.
This. Reading a game well, reacting accordingly to what you read and being able to plan strategical moves in advance/anticipate what your opponent is doing is what makes a true bonjwa. and now you insert the innovation interview where he says that he's better at sc2 because there is much less strategical finesse required. (his own words) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/418616-interview-with-stx_innovation#1pretty cool itw from the robot anyway no, he doesn't say that. he says he can use his mechanics because the game is faster, which can make up for his lack of finesse
he's saying that his mechanics allow him to make up for his lake of strategical finesse in sc2 since the game is faster. Is for you that doesn't implay sc2 requires less strategical finesse than bw...
|
A lot of very skilled bw player did not have 400apm...
And as it has been said there were no hardcounters
|
Flash and Jaedong weren't the best because they were the fastest palyers around. it was mechanics and tactical nous that got them their wins.
|
Also sc2 will never have bonjwas because the game keeps changing because of patches. Dont think BW had a patch post 2005?
|
On December 28 2014 02:49 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:46 Ej_ wrote:On December 28 2014 02:40 sAsImre wrote:On December 28 2014 02:37 OtherWorld wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 sAsImre wrote:
you could use the queue in scbw. it's multi building selection that appeared in sc2.
FlaSh didn't dominate bw because of his mechanics.
This. Reading a game well, reacting accordingly to what you read and being able to plan strategical moves in advance/anticipate what your opponent is doing is what makes a true bonjwa. and now you insert the innovation interview where he says that he's better at sc2 because there is much less strategical finesse required. (his own words) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/418616-interview-with-stx_innovation#1pretty cool itw from the robot anyway no, he doesn't say that. he says he can use his mechanics because the game is faster, which can make up for his lack of finesse he's saying that his mechanics allow him to make up for his lake of strategical finesse in sc2 since the game is faster. Is for you that doesn't implay sc2 requires less strategical finesse than bw...
It implies you need less strategical finesse if you can make it up with being as mechanically good as INnoVation is. Which most people, even amongst top GSL performers, can't.
|
It's probably way too early to talk about a SC2 bonjwa too. iirc Broodwar dates back to 1998, and the first bonjwa, saviOr, to 2005, which makes a 7 years gap. By these estimations the first SC2 bonjwa should arrive 7 years after LotV's release, provided LotV changes core mechanics of the game
|
APM, a completely overrated concept that largely fails to explain how demanding/difficult something is.
|
United States15275 Posts
On December 28 2014 02:31 sAsImre wrote:
you could use the queue in scbw. it's multi building selection that appeared in sc2.
FlaSh didn't dominate bw because of his mechanics.
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.
|
MVP wasn't a bonjwa?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YJZsMmkl.jpg)
|
On December 28 2014 03:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:31 sAsImre wrote:
you could use the queue in scbw. it's multi building selection that appeared in sc2.
FlaSh didn't dominate bw because of his mechanics.
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 that aspect. Flash's APM was only in the low 300s and he was considered a somewhat "slow" player.
And apm-wise, he's still in the rather low end of the spectrum in SC2.
|
On December 28 2014 03:08 H0i wrote:
MVP wasn't a bonjwa?
Nope.
|
On December 28 2014 03:12 rotta wrote:Nope.
SC2 has come a long way since then. The game is understood by every pro gamer and what usually separates them now is not game knowledge but micro and decisiveness.
|
On December 28 2014 03:12 rotta wrote:Nope.
He's arguably as close as one could get to that title I would think.
|
There's just a lot more tournaments played for sc2 then bw which makes it seem a lot harder for someone to be bonjwa status. 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.
|
MVP was a Bonjwa, also, savior wasn't brood war's first Bonjwa, it was IloveOov. 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.
|
On December 28 2014 03:48 Friedobert wrote:
savior wasn't brood war's first Bonjwa, it was IloveOov.
Please do elaborate.
|
|
|
On December 28 2014 02:51 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:
Also sc2 will never have bonjwas because the game keeps changing because of patches. Dont think BW had a patch post 2005?
Last balance patch was in 2001. All other patches since then were mostly bug fixes and performance tweaks afaik.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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. Flash had very strong mechanics and APM, but not more so than the other top pros. He didn't become a bonjwa due to that.
|
What all Bonjwa's in BW shared was that at their peak form, they had a single year when they won over 70% of their games. Only Flash (2009-2011) and Jaedong (2008-2010) managed to do so multiple years. The reason they won was different, however. Boxer won through gamesense, Nada and Iloveoov overpowered people through mechanics/macro, Savior set up superior engagements and used better strategies, and Flash was the ultimate weapon. Interestingly enough, Savior had one of the lowest APM's, so it's not just mechanics that allowed people to dominate.
Now let's consider the number of games. I think Nada played the most games in his career at 730 games, a career that stretches about 9 years. MC has already played almost 2000 registered games in his career. At the peak of BW (~2009) the best players played about 160 games per year. Zest played 304 games in 2014. Life in his peak from July 2012 to March 2013 played 318 games. Mvp played 351 games in 2011, even winning 71% of them, similar to the Bonjwa's in BW. They all play twice as many games in the same time.
I believe that part of the reason why the Bonjwa's seemed as dominant as they were, is that they had adequate time to prepare for each game, removing much variance from the equation. They were all extremely solid all-round players, but what set them apart was their ability to prepare well in best-of-sets against their opponents, or even just for PL games. No matter how bad Flash plays in general in other tournaments, he's never really had a bad PL record yet because he prepares well for those games, and even Jaedong carried Team 8 through Ace Matches. Stork also had the most success in PL, even when he didn't seem to be able to win games at all.
Because of the sheer number of games, it's mostly about gamesense (Taeja, Mvp, Life, Zest) or insane mechanics (Innovation, soO) or micro (Maru, PartinG), skills that translate into an advantage in every game, that allow players to win more often and set themselves apart. But even they can't remain undefeated for an entire month with multiple high-profile matches, which is something that happened quite a few times back in BW.
|
|
|
On December 28 2014 03:12 rotta wrote:Nope.
MVP definitely was head and shoulders above everyone at the time. The funny part was that MVP like Flash dominated based on his strategic innovation, guile, and tactics rather than through exceptional mechanics (I mean he had very good mechanics, still not on par with other players at the time like MKP). I mean, MVP even dominated in matches against other Korean players with little to no preparation, let alone GSL type matches where he could straight dominate opponents when he had time to prepare for them.
|
|
|
On December 28 2014 04:31 Neemi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +What all Bonjwa's in BW shared was that at their peak form, they had a single year when they won over 70% of their games. Only Flash (2009-2011) and Jaedong (2008-2010) managed to do so multiple years. The reason they won was different, however. Boxer won through gamesense, Nada and Iloveoov overpowered people through mechanics/macro, Savior set up superior engagements and used better strategies, and Flash was the ultimate weapon. Interestingly enough, Savior had one of the lowest APM's, so it's not just mechanics that allowed people to dominate.
Now let's consider the number of games. I think Nada played the most games in his career at 730 games, a career that stretches about 9 years. MC has already played almost 2000 registered games in his career. At the peak of BW (~2009) the best players played about 160 games per year. Zest played 304 games in 2014. Life in his peak from July 2012 to March 2013 played 318 games. Mvp played 351 games in 2011, even winning 71% of them, similar to the Bonjwa's in BW. They all play twice as many games in the same time.
I believe that part of the reason why the Bonjwa's seemed as dominant as they were, is that they had adequate time to prepare for each game, removing much variance from the equation. They were all extremely solid all-round players, but what set them apart was their ability to prepare well in best-of-sets against their opponents, or even just for PL games. No matter how bad Flash plays in general in other tournaments, he's never really had a bad PL record yet because he prepares well for those games, and even Jaedong carried Team 8 through Ace Matches. Stork also had the most success in PL, even when he didn't seem to be able to win games at all.
Because of the sheer number of games, it's mostly about gamesense (Taeja, Mvp, Life, Zest) or insane mechanics (Innovation, soO) or micro (Maru, PartinG), skills that translate into an advantage in every game, that allow players to win more often and set themselves apart. But even they can't remain undefeated for an entire month with multiple high-profile matches, which is something that happened quite a few times back in BW.
Also, there was only really the OSL and MSL to watch, rather than having a ton of different tournaments and not every player in each tournament. There's just too much noise now for anyone to really stand out among the rest in the way the BW Bonjwas did.
|
On December 28 2014 02:29 perspicaciousinnate wrote:+ Show Spoiler +What do you guys think of this theory?
Because Blizzard incorporated queuing into starcraft 2, APM has become much less important. (APM is still very important but just less so.)
In starcraft 1, without queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 400 APM to attain a certain level of control. In contrast, in starcraft 2, with queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 300 APM to attain the same level of control. Since, there are more pros with 300 APM, it's less likely you'll get a bonjwa. On the other hand, the players would can get 400 APM are very few so bonjwa's are possible.
Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. Unfortunately, anyone can eventually figure out the counters to builds. Preparation has become that much important and this has leveled out the playing field a bit because it becomes a matter of how much time you put in. It relies less on latent ability.
We see this in practice. Jaedong and Flash with their insane multitasking and APM were able to attain dominance for a long time. In starcraft 2, it's definitely helped them get into the top 20. But, no one will ever attain bonjwa status.
Blizzard for the next patch or game, should think about either 2 things. It should get rid of queuing so that APM is more important. Or, it should add another component to the game play so that additional APM is required.
People have already pointed out that queuing was in SC:BW, even though the action cap was lower. However, no one has pointed out that his APM portion of the theory is also flawed. The in-game time used to calculate APM is only 40 real seconds per in-game minute. An SC2 APM of 300 is equal to a SC:BW APM of 450, which was based on real time. The two main points of your "theory" are built on incorrect information. Why is this thread still open?
Also, MVP's insane dominance throughout WOL should be considered bonjwa material for that time period.
|
You can only play who is in front of you. Is it MVP's fault that at the time KesPA were being jackasses? Such a ridiculous argument. MVP played who was in front of him, and beat them. That's all that matters. It's like trying to argue in sports that so and so team or player played in a 'weak' era. You can only play who is available at the time and willing to play. Here's the facts, MVP dominated from 2010-2012 with a blip around Feb to July. Not a single other player has been able to replicate the same results in terms of domination.
|
Wouldn't worry about the apm, Blizzard did an awesome job with making the game harder controlwise then its predecessor. Now you don't fight the game engine anymore with your apm. You try to get the best out of your units in a game and they also balanced it out with increased gamespeed.
The final result is, that the apm is as important just put elsewhere. Though I would say Sc2 is to fast to actually be able to play out your apm and since it is harder to optimize your units then to simple work around the game engine ... you end up with less apm and more to do in Sc2.
I can't wait till robo wrists will be handed out to pro players and I'll see attacks being orchestrated by queuing up small groups of units pre battle, so you can do even more things while the battle is going on and green and red lines everywhere before an engagement.
Well that or people will realize Sc2 is way more awesome 1 speed below the max and won't need robo wrists for that.
|
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...
|
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...
There will never be a dominating player in sc2 in the same way there was in BW for obvious reasons.
|
On December 28 2014 05:02 superstartran wrote:You can only play who is in front of you. Is it MVP's fault that at the time KesPA were being jackasses? Such a ridiculous argument. MVP played who was in front of him, and beat them. That's all that matters. It's like trying to argue in sports that so and so team or player played in a 'weak' era. You can only play who is available at the time and willing to play. Here's the facts, MVP dominated from 2010-2012 with a blip around Feb to July. Not a single other player has been able to replicate the same results in terms of domination.
I don't think he dominated in 2010 nor 2012. His era was impressive, but the b-word shouldn't apply to WoL.
|
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...
Yep, all the GSL finalists in HotS have been Kespa so far.
Let's just wait until the upcoming Ro16...
|
You can't have a consistently winning player in a consistently changing game. As soon as they stop balance patches, you'll see one player dominate for a long period of time. It's already happened several times. Innovation, was literally patched out of existence. Its got nothing to do with Brood War.
|
The real reason you will never see a bonjwa is that theres a shit ton of tournaments, and a balance patch every other sunday. Both preclude the capacity. How lucrative streaming is doesnt help matters either.
|
Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game.
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.
|
Who cares about bonjwa?
We've already seen the greatest banjo of our time.
|
On December 28 2014 05:27 rotta wrote:Show nested quote +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... Yep, all the GSL finalists in HotS have been Kespa so far. Let's just wait until the upcoming Ro16...
Blizzcon showed how dominant they are.
|
On December 28 2014 05:22 rotta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 05:02 superstartran wrote:You can only play who is in front of you. Is it MVP's fault that at the time KesPA were being jackasses? Such a ridiculous argument. MVP played who was in front of him, and beat them. That's all that matters. It's like trying to argue in sports that so and so team or player played in a 'weak' era. You can only play who is available at the time and willing to play. Here's the facts, MVP dominated from 2010-2012 with a blip around Feb to July. Not a single other player has been able to replicate the same results in terms of domination. I don't think he dominated in 2010 nor 2012. His era was impressive, but the b-word shouldn't apply to WoL.
No one has replicated his results from 2010-2012, not a single KesPA player. You can call it parity, you can call it whatever you want, but the facts are the facts. From 2010-2012 MVP was either the best player in the world or top 3 at the very least during his slump months.
You can't say the same for anyone else.
|
On December 28 2014 06:01 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. 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.
Not necessearily a better game, but a better e-sport IMHO. In BW it was never really possible for a player to play a "perfect" game, you had to choose where to focus your attention on and that's also what allowed the skill of players to gradually rise and rise and the game never really felt mapped out. It took years for the players to perfect micro on vultures or mutas.
There was too much to do as well. Now you see Life forcing tons of mistakes and it's awesome and shows his mechanical and strategic dominance over other players. In BW it was kind of a norm (from different reasons too, but mechanics were a big aspect).
It was IMHO easier for players to define themselves through either macro or micro.
Those things paired together with how good defender's advantage and actually killing someone in BW were, made for awesome games where you couldn't just a-move to win and comeback potential was REALLY big.
I'm not saying SC2 is a bad game or that Brood War as a game was better, but it was a much more fierce competition and it's insane difficulty level allowed for the players to develop and improve themselves endlessly and also made playing from a BO disadvantage or loss much more possible. And that made it a better esport IMHO.
As for if there's an SC2 bonjwa:
I think Mvp, Life and INnoVation all have reached their peaks that made them insane and the reign they had over the scene at their respective times was bonjwa-esque. So it's surely possible to occur. But you'd have to remain on the top for longer than they did and I think we'll have to wait for LotV to come and more patches to happen to have that occur if ever.
|
soOjwa and Bbyongjwa will prove thou wrong
|
the B word has become cringe worthy :/
|
The games are just different, SC2 is much more arcadey. It can snowball very quick and if you fall behind, it's easy for the opponent to bully you with the bigger army and win. It's volatile to a point I don't think we'll ever see a BW-esque Bonjwa.
Flash, Savior and iloveoov weren't the fastest or the best mechanically. Their decision-making and strategical innovation made them great. I think those kinds of skill aren't rewarded as much in SC2. Had many new strategies have really come to light? How many famous comebacks through consistently better decisions? sOs is the only innovative player I've seen recently, although he's quite inconsistent.
Lower mechanical ceiling is another thing. Players like NaDa, Jaedong can't win through pure mechanics like they could in BW. Jaedong's Muta micro won games alone. BoxeR (although more known for his innovations with strategies) pulled off incredible comebacks through great micro. In general SC2 units are less microable than BW.
|
On December 28 2014 05:27 rotta wrote:Show nested quote +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... Yep, all the GSL finalists in HotS have been Kespa so far. Let's just wait until the upcoming Ro16...
true but you cant selectively ignore the OSL which Maru won when on Prime because it was named differently. the OSL took place between two GSL's in hots.
|
United States23455 Posts
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!!
|
On December 28 2014 06:08 Starecat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 05:27 rotta wrote: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... Yep, all the GSL finalists in HotS have been Kespa so far. Let's just wait until the upcoming Ro16... Blizzcon showed how dominant they are.
Yes, western weekend tournaments don't seem to suit them.
On December 28 2014 06:49 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 05:27 rotta wrote: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... Yep, all the GSL finalists in HotS have been Kespa so far. Let's just wait until the upcoming Ro16... true but you cant selectively ignore the OSL which Maru won when on Prime because it was named differently. the OSL took place between two GSL's in hots.
Fair enough, I didn't remember that one.
|
On December 28 2014 02:44 Big J wrote:
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!)
Is this a joke? Do you realize during BW's prime how many people were trying to even get "pro / semi pro " status? You realize how hard it was? The amount of people trying to be pro / that were pro and the difficulty in staying pro was a level of difficulty we cannot even begin to understand.
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
Because  Bisu didn't become bonjwa in BW
|
On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!!
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.
On December 28 2014 06:01 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. 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.
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.
|
On December 28 2014 07:31 GGzerG wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:44 Big J wrote:
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!) Is this a joke? Do you realize during BW's prime how many people were trying to even get "pro / semi pro " status? You realize how hard it was? The amount of people trying to be pro / that were pro and the difficulty in staying pro was a level of difficulty we cannot even begin to understand.
I thought he was joking.
Anyways, my only input is that I agree with many comparisons between BW and SC2.
I am pretty sure he was joking
On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!!
It sure is.
|
On December 28 2014 07:31 GGzerG wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:44 Big J wrote:
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!) Is this a joke? Do you realize during BW's prime how many people were trying to even get "pro / semi pro " status? You realize how hard it was? The amount of people trying to be pro / that were pro and the difficulty in staying pro was a level of difficulty we cannot even begin to understand.
It's a joke. The whole OP is bad. It takes an arbitrary difference between SC2 and SC1 (could have taken any other), does hardly any analysis on it (300APm vs 400APM... well in SC2 there are players with 400APM too...), to justify a difference in competition (no bonjwa). And that difference is called bad without a reasoning (some of the greatest sports never had bonjwas...)
|
HEY GUYS SC2 SO EZ SC2 IS FOR NOOBS WITH ZERO APM LIKE LIFE AND DEAR
NOT LIKE BW, BW IS FOR REAL PROS WITH 1000+ APM LIKE SAVIOR AND ILOVEOOV, THEY HAD GREAT APM THATS WHY THEY WERE SO GOOD AT BW
User was warned for this post
|
On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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.
Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots? Not that all pros are playing identically, but more like a strong bw pro has a 75% win chance against a weaker player, a hots pro will have only 65% win chance against an equally weaker opponent. That would make it harder to have a bonjwa in hots than in bw, which is what I think the OP is referring to.
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.
|
It's kinda hard to tell when people are being serious or not anymore....And I think the term "Bonjwa" Is a term that can be left with BW......
|
I guess I'll never understand why this matters. SC2 already has quite a few legends
|
The more mechanically challenging a game is, the more likely it is that the best players will dominate. While strategy and decisionmaking are also a skillset, it's a type of skillset that is less likely to be able to provide consistent results since it's easier to copy or learn.
Whether that is a good or bad thing is debateable, but I don't think it's debateable that BW is more mechanically demanding than Sc2.
|
The "Why there isn't a BW Bonjwa?" discussion is really wrong tho, you are basically asking why somebody isn't so good that they can become a "legend" above a lot of pros who work really hard to win, if becoming a Bonjwa were so easy it wouldn't mean much at all, wheter the fact that hasn't been a Bonjwa in SC2 is because there CAN'T BE a Bonjwa or simple because there hasn't been anybody to actually BECOME a Bonjwa is really hard to say, as it has been pointed out sAviOr the original Bonjwa (Oov and BoxeR were considered Bonjwas only after sAviOr did) was named such in 2005 many years after BW last patch, SC2 is still in too much change for it to b Bonjwa, instead of trying to use arbitrary terms we should let things play out, we may never have a Bonjwa in SC2 who knows is not like people like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods appear so frequently, if they did they would be the legends they are.
|
Ok guys, who used the time machine and brought us back to 2011?
|
On December 28 2014 09:51 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote:On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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. Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots? Not that all pros are playing identically, but more like a strong bw pro has a 75% win chance against a weaker player, a hots pro will have only 65% win chance against an equally weaker opponent. That would make it harder to have a bonjwa in hots than in bw, which is what I think the OP is referring to. 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.
I will bite.
How bigger the skill ceiling is, is completely irrelevant if noone can reach the top in none of the games.
As an example (completely made up, just to ilustrate the point).
Game/player skill
Skill ceiling (!!)
BW : ++++++++++++++ _______________________ !!
SC2: ++++++++++++++ ____________ !!
What makes you think that if people haven't truly mastered and can't play SC2 to perfection, would make it any relevant if BW skill ceiling was bigger ?
|
On December 28 2014 11:04 Hider wrote:
The more mechanically challenging a game is, the more likely it is that the best players will dominate. While strategy and decisionmaking are also a skillset, it's a type of skillset that is less likely to be able to provide consistent results since it's easier to copy or learn.
Whether that is a good or bad thing is debateable, but I don't think it's debateable that BW is more mechanically demanding than Sc2.
This is complete nonsense. You write this post with the assumption that the 'best player' is the one with the best mechanical skill. But the game does not exclusively consist out of mechanical skill; thus such a player is not necessarily the best. The player who wins is the best player. Simple as that. It doesn't matter that his opponent may have better mechanics, he managed to make up for this deficit in some other way.
Strategy and decision making easy to copy or learn? Actually it is mechanics that are easy to learn, it just takes a lot of time to do so.
|
On December 28 2014 02:29 perspicaciousinnate wrote:
What do you guys think of this theory?
Because Blizzard incorporated queuing into starcraft 2, APM has become much less important. (APM is still very important but just less so.)
In starcraft 1, without queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 400 APM to attain a certain level of control. In contrast, in starcraft 2, with queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 300 APM to attain the same level of control. Since, there are more pros with 300 APM, it's less likely you'll get a bonjwa. On the other hand, the players would can get 400 APM are very few so bonjwa's are possible.
Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. Unfortunately, anyone can eventually figure out the counters to builds. Preparation has become that much important and this has leveled out the playing field a bit because it becomes a matter of how much time you put in. It relies less on latent ability.
We see this in practice. Jaedong and Flash with their insane multitasking and APM were able to attain dominance for a long time. In starcraft 2, it's definitely helped them get into the top 20. But, no one will ever attain bonjwa status.
Blizzard for the next patch or game, should think about either 2 things. It should get rid of queuing so that APM is more important. Or, it should add another component to the game play so that additional APM is required.
You might want to add "poor unit design" in your list of reasons.
SC2's units a very overpowered (through all races) and it's one of the reasons 95% of the games are instantly over. Games are decided long before they actually end due this as well.
|
|
|
On December 28 2014 09:49 Apoteosis wrote:
HEY GUYS SC2 SO EZ SC2 IS FOR NOOBS WITH ZERO APM LIKE LIFE AND DEAR
NOT LIKE BW, BW IS FOR REAL PROS WITH 1000+ APM LIKE SAVIOR AND ILOVEOOV, THEY HAD GREAT APM THATS WHY THEY WERE SO GOOD AT BW
User was warned for this post
hahah so great
|
This thread really highlights the fallacy's of golden age syndrome. So many assumptions and variables not taken into consideration.
|
This is an excessively simplistic comparison between sc2 and bw. For the record queuing was possible in bw; strategy has not been "much" more important in sc2 than in bw; and jd and flash were amongst a group of high-apm/multitasking korean progamers (they were not alone), not to mention some very good bw players did not have jd/flash's apm.
|
never is the wrong word, considering infinite time and infinite events, eventually it is bound to happen
some might say it is even harder to achieve than BW in this sense :p
|
I don't think there will ever be a "true bonjwa" for sc2. People are too cynical.
Even if a player wins 3 tournaments in a row and wins over 70% of their games, there will always be an excuse nowadays.
I don't think it could happen in sc2 though because of how many tournaments/travelling is done between the players and what people consider a "legitimate" tournament.
I do believe that as far as SC2 goes, I'd consider MVP a bonjwa. He was definitely way ahead of is era and was always considered at least top 3 terrans during a time where terran was seen as overly dominate. I don't think anyone will be able to catch up to him because Legacy of the Void is basically a new game.
He is the winner of SC2
|
APM isn't really a factor of whether or not you are "Bonjwa" lol....
You know how many random 350-400+ apm Koreans I've played ? I guess the OP is joking but people took this seriously, me included...
I believe Julyzerg who hit the highest recorded APM in a live broadcasted pro match, but he was never considered a "Bonjwa".
KyO who was famous for hitting 400-500 -/+ APM, was never really that famous, and never a "Bonjwa"
Anyways...I will stand alongside the fact that I don't think its possible for someone to be a "Bonjwa" in SC2, because it hasn't been out long enough, and I think the term should stick with BW....maybe until SC2 meets BW in many different factors, I just don't think its right to throw this term around.
|
Japan11286 Posts
I find the OP's argument irrelevant when the one true Bonjwa is famous for having around 250 APM.
|
This thread is hillarious.
For one...MVP is the SC2 equivalent of a bonjwa given his lordship over most of WoL. Call it whatever you like if you don't like the term "bonjwa"; but he is a legend of the game who showed utter dominance for a significant extended period of time. Think up a new term if you wish because the SC2 scene is rather larger internationally than the BW scene was so its harder for one person to win literally everything, but to dismiss his accomplishments is incredibly disrespectful.
On a side note to head off the "but it was WoL"...that doesn't matter. You play the game you've got and it doesn't matter whether we've come a way since then.
For another, don't link that Elephant in the Room article. You're embarrassing yourself. Its been thoroughly debunked. The declaration (I'd say hypothesis but it wasn't really a hypothesis because it stated "this is true!") was that the best BW players were way, way better than the best SC2 players so as soon as they came across all the current (at the time) SC2 players would be relegated to the very bottom whilst the top was going to be taken over by the BW elites. That factually did not happen...a mix of both BW and SC2 players crashed down, BW players in most cases took a while to catch up and when they did it wasn't always the names you'd expect, some legends demonstrated that they couldn't adapt and some lesser known players took up that baton and ran away with it. It shook up the scene, but the prediction in the article did not come to fruition.
And finally...the premise of the OP is that APM = bonjwa.
What...seriously? *facepalm*
|
On December 28 2014 02:29 perspicaciousinnate wrote:
We see this in practice. Jaedong and Flash with their insane multitasking and APM were able to attain dominance for a long time. In starcraft 2, it's definitely helped them get into the top 20. But, no one will ever attain bonjwa status.
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.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb.
|
On December 28 2014 13:11 epi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:29 perspicaciousinnate wrote:
We see this in practice. Jaedong and Flash with their insane multitasking and APM were able to attain dominance for a long time. In starcraft 2, it's definitely helped them get into the top 20. But, no one will ever attain bonjwa status.
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.
you honestly think flash's micro was "below average" lol?
|
On December 28 2014 09:51 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote:On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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. Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots? Not that all pros are playing identically, but more like a strong bw pro has a 75% win chance against a weaker player, a hots pro will have only 65% win chance against an equally weaker opponent. That would make it harder to have a bonjwa in hots than in bw, which is what I think the OP is referring to. 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.
It's not open for debate, there are statistics that you can actually look up.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/BoxeR#Statistics
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Iloveoov#Statistics
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/NaDa#Statistics
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/SAviOr#Career_Statistics
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/July#Statistics
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Jaedong#Statistics
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Flash#Statistics
The average winrate during 'peak years' is around 70% (which is really good) or 60%.
In response to your question 'Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots?' it is impossible to assess because every patch to HotS and the impending subsequent title changes the actual way players understand the game. This leaves players scrambling to find a solution to the new problem of figuring out how to play after patches, and there is an inevitable gravitation towards certain winning strategies. As players become more aware of the games' outcomes over time, the strategies will no longer evolve to adapt to the patch, but evolve to adapt to what many people refer to as 'the meta-game'.
|
On December 28 2014 13:04 -Celestial- wrote:
BW players in most cases took a while to catch up and when they did it wasn't always the names you'd expect, some legends demonstrated that they couldn't adapt and some lesser known players took up that baton and ran away with it
"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".
|
On December 28 2014 13:11 epi wrote:
Flash in particular had mediocre APM and below-average micro -
.....
.................
No comment.
|
On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb.
This.
|
On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb.
Superstars is what people want to see. It draws more people to watch the game.
Look at tennis, Men's tennis is dominated by the top 4. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. This is a marketers dream.
If a random is winning every week, like in SC2. No one cares. The game is too random.
|
SC2's skill ceiling is too low, and the game is badly designed (too much reliance on build orders, hard counters etc...)
You won't see bonjwa's, which is sad. If SC2 wants to be popular as an esport, it needs superstars to dominate. Players that everyone looks up to, players that draw thousands of people whenever they play.
Look at BW. Players like jaedong, flash and bisu draws massive crowds and hype whenever they play. It makes the game way more popular, with both casuals and hardcore people. With SC2 you can be the best one week, and lose every match the next week because the game is so random. There is no player to generate the hype and stardom.
David Kim needs to get sacked. Bring back micro and skill into Starcraft!!
|
On December 28 2014 15:48 Highways wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb. Superstars is what people want to see. It draws more people to watch the game. Look at tennis, Men's tennis is dominated by the top 4. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. This is a marketers dream. If a random is winning every week, like in SC2. No one cares. The game is too random.
In an unrelated note, nobody cares about Men's Tennis.
|
On December 28 2014 15:58 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 15:48 Highways wrote:On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb. Superstars is what people want to see. It draws more people to watch the game. Look at tennis, Men's tennis is dominated by the top 4. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. This is a marketers dream. If a random is winning every week, like in SC2. No one cares. The game is too random. In an unrelated note, nobody cares about Men's Tennis.
Well more people care about men's tennis than do about starcraft.
Still, the top 10 is pretty consistent throughout the course of a season in SC2. There's just way more competitions in SC2 than there were in BW. In BW if you happened to win an OSL and an MSL in the same year you've practically stomped your name into the game's history.
In SC2 there's too many tournaments with too many different formats for anyone to be that consistent.
|
On December 28 2014 15:58 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 15:48 Highways wrote:On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb. Superstars is what people want to see. It draws more people to watch the game. Look at tennis, Men's tennis is dominated by the top 4. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. This is a marketers dream. If a random is winning every week, like in SC2. No one cares. The game is too random. In an unrelated note, nobody cares about Men's Tennis.
What an unbelievably stupid statement to make...
Tons of people care about Men's Tennis. You don't earn $71.5 million a year as an individual superstar from nobody caring about your sport.
|
On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb.
Not sure if serious... I'm pretty sure the majority of people agree that the times of Boxer/Savior/iloveoov/Flash/Jaedong/Bisu etc were very exciting and they would much prefer that these stars existed than not.
Sure not all of these were bonjwas but they were all wayyyyy up there.
|
In SC2 context, Mvp could be considered Bonjwa. His winrate is not that different from Bonjwas from BW. BW pros didn't need to travel all over the world like SC2 pros too.
|
On December 28 2014 15:53 Highways wrote:
SC2's skill ceiling is too low, and the game is badly designed (too much reliance on build orders, hard counters etc...)
You won't see bonjwa's, which is sad. If SC2 wants to be popular as an esport, it needs superstars to dominate. Players that everyone looks up to, players that draw thousands of people whenever they play.
Look at BW. Players like jaedong, flash and bisu draws massive crowds and hype whenever they play. It makes the game way more popular, with both casuals and hardcore people. With SC2 you can be the best one week, and lose every match the next week because the game is so random. There is no player to generate the hype and stardom.
David Kim needs to get sacked. Bring back micro and skill into Starcraft!!
Saying it's skill ceiling is too low is laughable when players like Flash and Jaedong haven't even touched the ceiling.. There were times when one player dominated for periods of time. Mvp's winrate at his peak was no different from your BW pros. SC2 pros also could not stay in one place if they wanted to be widely accepted as the world best.
|
On December 28 2014 16:35 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 15:53 Highways wrote:
SC2's skill ceiling is too low, and the game is badly designed (too much reliance on build orders, hard counters etc...)
You won't see bonjwa's, which is sad. If SC2 wants to be popular as an esport, it needs superstars to dominate. Players that everyone looks up to, players that draw thousands of people whenever they play.
Look at BW. Players like jaedong, flash and bisu draws massive crowds and hype whenever they play. It makes the game way more popular, with both casuals and hardcore people. With SC2 you can be the best one week, and lose every match the next week because the game is so random. There is no player to generate the hype and stardom.
David Kim needs to get sacked. Bring back micro and skill into Starcraft!! Saying it's skill ceiling is too low is laughable when players like Flash and Jaedong haven't even touched the ceiling.. There were times when one player dominated for periods of time. Mvp's winrate at his peak was no different from your BW pros. SC2 pros also could not stay in one place if they wanted to be widely accepted as the world best.
It's not that the skill ceiling is too low it's that there's too much stuff like luck, unit hard counters, this build beats that build even if the player with the better build plays worse than the other guy. Makes it almost impossible for there to ever be a bonjwa.
|
On December 28 2014 16:48 DuckloadBlackra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 16:35 Wildmoon wrote:On December 28 2014 15:53 Highways wrote:
SC2's skill ceiling is too low, and the game is badly designed (too much reliance on build orders, hard counters etc...)
You won't see bonjwa's, which is sad. If SC2 wants to be popular as an esport, it needs superstars to dominate. Players that everyone looks up to, players that draw thousands of people whenever they play.
Look at BW. Players like jaedong, flash and bisu draws massive crowds and hype whenever they play. It makes the game way more popular, with both casuals and hardcore people. With SC2 you can be the best one week, and lose every match the next week because the game is so random. There is no player to generate the hype and stardom.
David Kim needs to get sacked. Bring back micro and skill into Starcraft!! Saying it's skill ceiling is too low is laughable when players like Flash and Jaedong haven't even touched the ceiling.. There were times when one player dominated for periods of time. Mvp's winrate at his peak was no different from your BW pros. SC2 pros also could not stay in one place if they wanted to be widely accepted as the world best. It's not that the skill ceiling is too low it's that there's too much stuff like luck, unit hard counters, this build beats that build even if the player with the better build plays worse than the other guy. Makes it almost impossible for there to ever be a bonjwa.
That's not actually even the main reason imo. It's just that tournaments in SC2 are all over the place and with many formats. Almost impossible to be prepared for everything.
|
On December 28 2014 16:57 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 16:48 DuckloadBlackra wrote:On December 28 2014 16:35 Wildmoon wrote:On December 28 2014 15:53 Highways wrote:
SC2's skill ceiling is too low, and the game is badly designed (too much reliance on build orders, hard counters etc...)
You won't see bonjwa's, which is sad. If SC2 wants to be popular as an esport, it needs superstars to dominate. Players that everyone looks up to, players that draw thousands of people whenever they play.
Look at BW. Players like jaedong, flash and bisu draws massive crowds and hype whenever they play. It makes the game way more popular, with both casuals and hardcore people. With SC2 you can be the best one week, and lose every match the next week because the game is so random. There is no player to generate the hype and stardom.
David Kim needs to get sacked. Bring back micro and skill into Starcraft!! Saying it's skill ceiling is too low is laughable when players like Flash and Jaedong haven't even touched the ceiling.. There were times when one player dominated for periods of time. Mvp's winrate at his peak was no different from your BW pros. SC2 pros also could not stay in one place if they wanted to be widely accepted as the world best. It's not that the skill ceiling is too low it's that there's too much stuff like luck, unit hard counters, this build beats that build even if the player with the better build plays worse than the other guy. Makes it almost impossible for there to ever be a bonjwa. That's not actually even the main reason imo. It's just that tournaments in SC2 are all over the place and with many formats. Almost impossible to be prepared for everything.
It is largely this and it's not a bad thing.
People just need to learn how to take these things in stride and not have knee jerk reactions when someone gets eliminated early and etc.
|
On December 28 2014 11:16 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 09:51 Cascade wrote:On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote:On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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. Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots? Not that all pros are playing identically, but more like a strong bw pro has a 75% win chance against a weaker player, a hots pro will have only 65% win chance against an equally weaker opponent. That would make it harder to have a bonjwa in hots than in bw, which is what I think the OP is referring to. 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. I will bite. How bigger the skill ceiling is, is completely irrelevant if noone can reach the top in none of the games. As an example (completely made up, just to ilustrate the point). Game/player skill Skill ceiling (!!) BW : ++++++++++++++ _______________________ !! SC2: ++++++++++++++ ____________ !! What makes you think that if people haven't truly mastered and can't play SC2 to perfection, would make it any relevant if BW skill ceiling was bigger ?
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.
|
On December 28 2014 13:49 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 09:51 Cascade wrote:On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote:On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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. Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots? Not that all pros are playing identically, but more like a strong bw pro has a 75% win chance against a weaker player, a hots pro will have only 65% win chance against an equally weaker opponent. That would make it harder to have a bonjwa in hots than in bw, which is what I think the OP is referring to. 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. It's not open for debate, there are statistics that you can actually look up. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/BoxeR#Statisticshttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Iloveoov#Statisticshttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/NaDa#Statisticshttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/SAviOr#Career_Statisticshttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/July#Statisticshttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Jaedong#Statisticshttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Flash#StatisticsThe average winrate during 'peak years' is around 70% (which is really good) or 60%. In response to your question 'Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots?' it is impossible to assess because every patch to HotS and the impending subsequent title changes the actual way players understand the game. This leaves players scrambling to find a solution to the new problem of figuring out how to play after patches, and there is an inevitable gravitation towards certain winning strategies. As players become more aware of the games' outcomes over time, the strategies will no longer evolve to adapt to the patch, but evolve to adapt to what many people refer to as 'the meta-game'.
I'm confused. I meant that it was up to debate whether bw had a higher skill ceiling than hots. First you say that it is not up to debate, and you give me win rates from bw. (Thanks.) Then you say that it is impossible to assess if bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots. :/ think there is some misunderstanding, sorry. What isn't open for debate?
Anyway I agree on the point that the entire skill ceiling business depends on the current state of the game, and the "meta".
|
On December 28 2014 02:29 perspicaciousinnate wrote:
What do you guys think of this theory?
Because Blizzard incorporated queuing into starcraft 2, APM has become much less important. (APM is still very important but just less so.)
In starcraft 1, without queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 400 APM to attain a certain level of control. In contrast, in starcraft 2, with queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 300 APM to attain the same level of control. Since, there are more pros with 300 APM, it's less likely you'll get a bonjwa. On the other hand, the players would can get 400 APM are very few so bonjwa's are possible.
Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. Unfortunately, anyone can eventually figure out the counters to builds. Preparation has become that much important and this has leveled out the playing field a bit because it becomes a matter of how much time you put in. It relies less on latent ability.
We see this in practice. Jaedong and Flash with their insane multitasking and APM were able to attain dominance for a long time. In starcraft 2, it's definitely helped them get into the top 20. But, no one will ever attain bonjwa status.
Blizzard for the next patch or game, should think about either 2 things. It should get rid of queuing so that APM is more important. Or, it should add another component to the game play so that additional APM is required.
difficulty for the sake of being difficult is pointless, you could hold tournaments that requires people to dishwash and play at the same time, even though dish washing and playing the game would tax people more it would still be boring, i would rather play a game that is less then 80% dishwashing, the macro mechanics are not the things i would want from BW, but the high ground mechanics, and especially the way mineral saturates, encouraging expansions, are the things that would look to be good, difficulty should come from game depth, microing and attacking and defending at multiple places not from increasing the difficulty of the chores part of the game
|
On December 28 2014 15:58 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 15:48 Highways wrote:On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb. Superstars is what people want to see. It draws more people to watch the game. Look at tennis, Men's tennis is dominated by the top 4. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. This is a marketers dream. If a random is winning every week, like in SC2. No one cares. The game is too random. 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.
|
On December 28 2014 17:40 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 11:16 Godwrath wrote:On December 28 2014 09:51 Cascade wrote:On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote:On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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. Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots? Not that all pros are playing identically, but more like a strong bw pro has a 75% win chance against a weaker player, a hots pro will have only 65% win chance against an equally weaker opponent. That would make it harder to have a bonjwa in hots than in bw, which is what I think the OP is referring to. 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. I will bite. How bigger the skill ceiling is, is completely irrelevant if noone can reach the top in none of the games. As an example (completely made up, just to ilustrate the point). Game/player skill Skill ceiling (!!) BW : ++++++++++++++ _______________________ !! SC2: ++++++++++++++ ____________ !! What makes you think that if people haven't truly mastered and can't play SC2 to perfection, would make it any relevant if BW skill ceiling was bigger ? 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.
|
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.
|
seriously the OP is so poorly written this thread should be closed. The most important "fact" that OP is relying on is queuing, and he even got that wrong.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
On December 28 2014 13:52 lolmlg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 13:04 -Celestial- wrote:
BW players in most cases took a while to catch up and when they did it wasn't always the names you'd expect, some legends demonstrated that they couldn't adapt and some lesser known players took up that baton and ran away with it "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.
|
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.
|
On December 28 2014 20:02 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 17:40 Cascade wrote:On December 28 2014 11:16 Godwrath wrote:On December 28 2014 09:51 Cascade wrote:On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote:On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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. Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots? Not that all pros are playing identically, but more like a strong bw pro has a 75% win chance against a weaker player, a hots pro will have only 65% win chance against an equally weaker opponent. That would make it harder to have a bonjwa in hots than in bw, which is what I think the OP is referring to. 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. I will bite. How bigger the skill ceiling is, is completely irrelevant if noone can reach the top in none of the games. As an example (completely made up, just to ilustrate the point). Game/player skill Skill ceiling (!!) BW : ++++++++++++++ _______________________ !! SC2: ++++++++++++++ ____________ !! What makes you think that if people haven't truly mastered and can't play SC2 to perfection, would make it any relevant if BW skill ceiling was bigger ? 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.
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.
|
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.
|
I think we're mistaken to be using the same definition for bonjwa for the two games. This. Isn't. Brood War. I'm not sure what the definition is once you turn it into a non-opinion, but it cannot remain the same between games.
|
you know, i haven't played sc2 seriously for a long time. a very long time. it could very well be that my impressions are out of date. i've written a lot of how i feel about sc2 so i don't think it's a secret that i think it's a worse game than bw.
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.
|
On December 28 2014 21:40 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Maru, Inno, Life, Parting are all doing what you say. Just open your eyes instead of believing Stephano is some kind of unique incarnation.
|
On December 28 2014 03:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:31 sAsImre wrote:
you could use the queue in scbw. it's multi building selection that appeared in sc2.
FlaSh didn't dominate bw because of his mechanics.
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:Show nested quote +Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. 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:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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. Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 06:01 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. 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. 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:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote:On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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. 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:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 09:51 Cascade wrote:On December 28 2014 09:10 ninazerg wrote:On December 28 2014 07:15 Darkhorse wrote:
This thread is really necessary and unique guys!!!!!!! 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. Wouldn't you say that bw has a higher skill ceiling than hots? Not that all pros are playing identically, but more like a strong bw pro has a 75% win chance against a weaker player, a hots pro will have only 65% win chance against an equally weaker opponent. That would make it harder to have a bonjwa in hots than in bw, which is what I think the OP is referring to. 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. 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:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:29 perspicaciousinnate wrote:
We see this in practice. Jaedong and Flash with their insane multitasking and APM were able to attain dominance for a long time. In starcraft 2, it's definitely helped them get into the top 20. But, no one will ever attain bonjwa status.
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.
|
weve seen players consistently win tournaments but they arnt what you call that thing that Koreans or whoever say
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.
|
On December 29 2014 03:16 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 21:40 Dingodile wrote: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. 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.
|
If you look at the top ELOs achieved in BW and HotS you will find that the highest ELO ever achieved was Flash in BW, but the next 8 are all in HotS. It seems to me that the game where the better player wins most consistently is HotS. Note that WoL had max ELO's lower than both, so that WoL was less skill intensive.
|
On December 29 2014 10:57 DuckloadBlackra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 03:16 sAsImre wrote:On December 28 2014 21:40 Dingodile wrote: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. 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.
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.
|
|
|
On December 29 2014 11:10 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 10:57 DuckloadBlackra wrote:On December 29 2014 03:16 sAsImre wrote:On December 28 2014 21:40 Dingodile wrote: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. 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. 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.
I never said anything about whether Life or Maru are one of the few or the only that can pull off a specific thing. A lot of players have a specialty that others are not as good at or can't/don't do.
That's not what we're talking about.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On December 28 2014 20:05 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +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.
i grew tired of explaining this years ago D:
|
On December 29 2014 11:38 JimmiC wrote:
Please define bonjwa, I think lots of the confusion is because different people have a different definition.
Isn't it a subjective perception of who we believe to be the best player in the world?
Being that's the case, instead of keeping track of length of time or number of trophies, how about we just track how many games during that specific "bonjwa time period" did that person actually play in. You can then measure different players not in how many years or trophies did they seem dominant, but in how many games did they seem dominant.
How many games did Flash Dominate in BW during his Bonjwa era and compare it to how many games MVP dominated in SC2 during his bonjwa era. Whoever in their "Bonjwa" time period won more games over time will tell you how much "bonjwa" was instilled into each win by the viewers.
Do the same for all the other Bonjwas and we can actually track how often viewers watched someone and called them bonjwa.
For example, from his first trophy until his scandal--how many games did Savior play?
Now, how about Nestea's 2011-2012 where he was the main zerg winning everything--how many games did Nestea play when he was the "best player in the world."
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On December 29 2014 13:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 11:38 JimmiC wrote:
Please define bonjwa, I think lots of the confusion is because different people have a different definition. Isn't it a subjective perception of who we believe to be the best player in the world? Being that's the case, instead of keeping track of length of time or number of trophies, how about we just track how many games during that specific "bonjwa time period" did that person actually play in. You can then measure different players not in how many years or trophies did they seem dominant, but in how many games did they seem dominant. How many games did Flash Dominate in BW during his Bonjwa era and compare it to how many games MVP dominated in SC2 during his bonjwa era. Whoever in their "Bonjwa" time period won more games over time will tell you how much "bonjwa" was instilled into each win by the viewers. Do the same for all the other Bonjwas and we can actually track how often viewers watched someone and called them bonjwa. For example, from his first trophy until his scandal--how many games did Savior play? Now, how about Nestea's 2011-2012 where he was the main zerg winning everything--how many games did Nestea play when he was the "best player in the world."
In individual leagues only, in their respective peaks
Flash from Ever OSL 09-10 to ABC Mart MSL: 94-31 (75.20%)
6 golds, 2 silvers
605 Days
Mvp from GSL January 2011 to WCG 2011: 103-43 (70.55%)
6 golds, 1 silver (+1 if you count Code A but you shouldn't)
* does not include Gainward, and Arena of Legends golds, and GeForce silver
344 Days
|
bonjwa means winning streak or un-beatable(winning but losing by accident or cheese) over a long period of time that's internally controlled by a greater organization.
I.E. jaedong was bonjwa for a period of time due to his high winrate over probably 1-2 years and the transition to flash showed us how such organization controlled the scene by avoiding deteriorating jd's status by not having jvf
u can take out the last part but I thought it was so obvious the BW scene is entertainment first and competition second.
|
I feel like this is one of those threads that can last forever....people will never agree here or find an answer. :-p
|
On December 29 2014 14:29 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 13:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2014 11:38 JimmiC wrote:
Please define bonjwa, I think lots of the confusion is because different people have a different definition. Isn't it a subjective perception of who we believe to be the best player in the world? Being that's the case, instead of keeping track of length of time or number of trophies, how about we just track how many games during that specific "bonjwa time period" did that person actually play in. You can then measure different players not in how many years or trophies did they seem dominant, but in how many games did they seem dominant. How many games did Flash Dominate in BW during his Bonjwa era and compare it to how many games MVP dominated in SC2 during his bonjwa era. Whoever in their "Bonjwa" time period won more games over time will tell you how much "bonjwa" was instilled into each win by the viewers. Do the same for all the other Bonjwas and we can actually track how often viewers watched someone and called them bonjwa. For example, from his first trophy until his scandal--how many games did Savior play? Now, how about Nestea's 2011-2012 where he was the main zerg winning everything--how many games did Nestea play when he was the "best player in the world." In individual leagues only, in their respective peaks Flash from Ever OSL 09-10 to ABC Mart MSL: 94-31 (75.20%) 6 golds, 2 silvers 605 Days Mvp from GSL January 2011 to WCG 2011: 103-43 (70.55%) 6 golds, 1 silver (+1 if you count Code A but you shouldn't) * does not include Gainward, and Arena of Legends golds, and GeForce silver 344 Days
So this is all about MVP doing it in 344 days instead of 605 days? 
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On December 29 2014 15:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 14:29 lichter wrote:On December 29 2014 13:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2014 11:38 JimmiC wrote:
Please define bonjwa, I think lots of the confusion is because different people have a different definition. Isn't it a subjective perception of who we believe to be the best player in the world? Being that's the case, instead of keeping track of length of time or number of trophies, how about we just track how many games during that specific "bonjwa time period" did that person actually play in. You can then measure different players not in how many years or trophies did they seem dominant, but in how many games did they seem dominant. How many games did Flash Dominate in BW during his Bonjwa era and compare it to how many games MVP dominated in SC2 during his bonjwa era. Whoever in their "Bonjwa" time period won more games over time will tell you how much "bonjwa" was instilled into each win by the viewers. Do the same for all the other Bonjwas and we can actually track how often viewers watched someone and called them bonjwa. For example, from his first trophy until his scandal--how many games did Savior play? Now, how about Nestea's 2011-2012 where he was the main zerg winning everything--how many games did Nestea play when he was the "best player in the world." In individual leagues only, in their respective peaks Flash from Ever OSL 09-10 to ABC Mart MSL: 94-31 (75.20%) 6 golds, 2 silvers 605 Days Mvp from GSL January 2011 to WCG 2011: 103-43 (70.55%) 6 golds, 1 silver (+1 if you count Code A but you shouldn't) * does not include Gainward, and Arena of Legends golds, and GeForce silver 344 Days So this is all about MVP doing it in 344 days instead of 605 days?
2fast4bonjwa
could be that during this time, Flash didn't win 3 tournaments, while Mvp didn't win 6
|
On December 29 2014 15:31 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 15:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2014 14:29 lichter wrote:On December 29 2014 13:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2014 11:38 JimmiC wrote:
Please define bonjwa, I think lots of the confusion is because different people have a different definition. Isn't it a subjective perception of who we believe to be the best player in the world? Being that's the case, instead of keeping track of length of time or number of trophies, how about we just track how many games during that specific "bonjwa time period" did that person actually play in. You can then measure different players not in how many years or trophies did they seem dominant, but in how many games did they seem dominant. How many games did Flash Dominate in BW during his Bonjwa era and compare it to how many games MVP dominated in SC2 during his bonjwa era. Whoever in their "Bonjwa" time period won more games over time will tell you how much "bonjwa" was instilled into each win by the viewers. Do the same for all the other Bonjwas and we can actually track how often viewers watched someone and called them bonjwa. For example, from his first trophy until his scandal--how many games did Savior play? Now, how about Nestea's 2011-2012 where he was the main zerg winning everything--how many games did Nestea play when he was the "best player in the world." In individual leagues only, in their respective peaks Flash from Ever OSL 09-10 to ABC Mart MSL: 94-31 (75.20%) 6 golds, 2 silvers 605 Days Mvp from GSL January 2011 to WCG 2011: 103-43 (70.55%) 6 golds, 1 silver (+1 if you count Code A but you shouldn't) * does not include Gainward, and Arena of Legends golds, and GeForce silver 344 Days So this is all about MVP doing it in 344 days instead of 605 days? 2fast4bonjwa could be that during this time, Flash didn't win 3 tournaments, while Mvp didn't win 6
Right now this mostly looks like two players performing with the exact same type* of dominance in a game-to-game comparison and one is considered a bonjwa because of scheduling and not because of performance.
edit:: typo
|
only reason bonjwa exist is because terrans were OP in broodwar.
|
On December 28 2014 02:44 Big J wrote:
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!)
Uhmm do you not understand how the BW Tournament structure in Korea worked? Everybody lived in a practice house, to become a low level practice partner you'd have to prove yourself time and time again, to get a shot at actually playing in a KESPA tournament you'd have to win a 126 player bo3 monthly tournament.
The Professional player sample might have been small, but the tournament structure was built to have a small player pool.
The opposite is true in SC2, the best players often play considerably worse players (Especially Dreamhack and other foreign tournaments), which should in theory inflate their winrates, but it doesn't because there is a bit more luck involved in SC2.
|
|
|
On December 29 2014 17:01 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 02:44 Big J wrote:
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!) Uhmm do you not understand how the BW Tournament structure in Korea worked? Everybody lived in a practice house, to become a low level practice partner you'd have to prove yourself time and time again, to get a shot at actually playing in a KESPA tournament you'd have to win a 126 player bo3 monthly tournament. The Professional player sample might have been small, but the tournament structure was built to have a small player pool. The opposite is true in SC2, the best players often play considerably worse players (Especially Dreamhack and other foreign tournaments), which should in theory inflate their winrates, but it doesn't because there is a bit more luck involved in SC2.
I have a question about winrates.
I did not know until today that MVP won the same number of games as Flash did during both of their "bonjwa" days, meaning that it took Flash twice as long to do as well as MVP. How many more games does each player in SC2 play compared to BW?
More specifically, how infrequent were the games in BW and can we trust that kind of sample size in comparison with the sample size in SC2?
|
On December 29 2014 17:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 17:01 thezanursic wrote:On December 28 2014 02:44 Big J wrote:
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!) Uhmm do you not understand how the BW Tournament structure in Korea worked? Everybody lived in a practice house, to become a low level practice partner you'd have to prove yourself time and time again, to get a shot at actually playing in a KESPA tournament you'd have to win a 126 player bo3 monthly tournament. The Professional player sample might have been small, but the tournament structure was built to have a small player pool. The opposite is true in SC2, the best players often play considerably worse players (Especially Dreamhack and other foreign tournaments), which should in theory inflate their winrates, but it doesn't because there is a bit more luck involved in SC2. I have a question about winrates. I did not know until today that MVP won the same number of games as Flash did during both of their "bonjwa" days, meaning that it took Flash twice as long to do as well as MVP. How many more games does each player in SC2 play compared to BW? More specifically, how infrequent were the games in BW and can we trust that kind of sample size in comparison with the sample size in SC2?
Twice as long but all players had about equal time to prepare so that doesn't really mean much; you could argue that winning consistently in a long practice period environment is more indicative of a player's skill or you could argue that winning a weekend tournament with less preparation is more indicative of a player's skill. Maintaining good form for a longer period of time in any sport is considered difficult as well, so a longer period of time should be counted in Flash's favor.
|
I think we are literally sitting in the stage in broodwar where players thought hotkeying buildings was "spammy" the very early days of starcraft were very slow and based on micro of just a few units. The players then were partially stunted by maps not having dependable expansions causing the game to be micro intensive. Say LotV lasted as long as broodwar did. We are in the Grrr... HOT Forever days right now those players were very slow and wore space suites . By time we get to the boxer and yellow days players will realize and remapped so that they will use 2 production keys and 8 army keys and 8 camera keys but they won't quite have it down. Now lastly the Jaedong, Flash, Bisu days! Once we are at the Jaedong, Flash, Bisu days players will use all 8 cameras and use effective control groups where mechanical limitations are finally gone we see bonjwas for the first time. If you can agree with what I have said in this post look into the core http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/341878-thecore-advanced-keyboard-layout where you can use 10 control groups 8 cameras and removing any limitation the standard hotkeys give.
|
On December 29 2014 17:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 17:01 thezanursic wrote:On December 28 2014 02:44 Big J wrote:
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!) Uhmm do you not understand how the BW Tournament structure in Korea worked? Everybody lived in a practice house, to become a low level practice partner you'd have to prove yourself time and time again, to get a shot at actually playing in a KESPA tournament you'd have to win a 126 player bo3 monthly tournament. The Professional player sample might have been small, but the tournament structure was built to have a small player pool. The opposite is true in SC2, the best players often play considerably worse players (Especially Dreamhack and other foreign tournaments), which should in theory inflate their winrates, but it doesn't because there is a bit more luck involved in SC2. I have a question about winrates. I did not know until today that MVP won the same number of games as Flash did during both of their "bonjwa" days, meaning that it took Flash twice as long to do as well as MVP. How many more games does each player in SC2 play compared to BW? More specifically, how infrequent were the games in BW and can we trust that kind of sample size in comparison with the sample size in SC2?
They're not comparable. MVP faced weaker players and was basically doing 1 tournament at a time. Flash dominated an established scene, making the finals of the concurrent individual leagues (OSL + MSL) for 3 consecutive seasons (won 4/6) whilst carrying his team in proleague (80% winrate over two seasons 2009-2011). Which is a pretty ridiculous length of time considering how much players would've been preparing for him and countering his builds.
|
On December 28 2014 06:01 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. 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.
Then you are in the wrong genre and should play turnbased strategy games! This is supposed to be an RTS! Real Time Strategy: For me this means that the time you have to focus on things is limited and you have to think about how you want to spend your time on things. For example: In BW you had simply so much to do that you cannot physically do everything, so part of your strategy is setting priorities about how you want to spend your time. Its not a better RTS if "time" doesnt play a huge part in it anymore.
|
iloveOov dominated not because of macro, or micro, or mechanics. He simply out thought his opponents time after time. His games were usually very sloppy. During his peak, he was one of the most hated pro gamers on this forum. Even after iloveOov retired he went on to be the most influential coach in BW hands down. His protege Fantasy revolutionized the TvZ matchup which previously had been boiled down to a science, using strategies/builds made by Oov. Long live the first bonjwa, the only man who made boxer cry.
|
On December 29 2014 19:17 404AlphaSquad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 06:01 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. 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. Then you are in the wrong genre and should play turnbased strategy games! This is supposed to be an RTS! Real Time Strategy: For me this means that the time you have to focus on things is limited and you have to think about how you want to spend your time on things. For example: In BW you had simply so much to do that you cannot physically do everything, so part of your strategy is setting priorities about how you want to spend your time. Its not a better RTS if "time" doesnt play a huge part in it anymore.
Starcraft/Blizzard-RTSstyle that plays very roleplay-esque (by intention), while the more oldschool RTSstyle is much more strategy/composition reliant.
|
The reason we will never see a bonjwa is because everything is set in stone.
Let me explain:
MVP was the first player to figure out most things in WoL. That dosent make you a bonjwa, makes you a boxer. Boxer also figured out most things in Broodwar first, and that gave him a huge edge for many years, but eventually it wasent enought.
In sc2 there are few unit imbalances that can be countered with skill: One example is Banes vs marine splits.
It is far harder for the terran player, where as for the zerg the hard part is to get enought banes (and nowdays also drag widow mine shots).
IN sc bw it was more common to require constant unit control, even micro to manage a high set of efficiency with any unit composition.
When zergs talk about terran mech or protoss air, they are correct: it is broken. Sure, you have to survive till that stage, and thats not easy, but in theory, in a balanced game, 200 army vs 200 army should never end in one player loosing everything and the other loosing 20 supply.
The problem is that you cant fix a broken care by adding new wheels, you need to rework the car from the ground up.
It does mater if blizzard adds patches that nerf or buff things, but it does not mean it will actually balance the game.
Now, in order for a bonjwa to appear, we would need a player who is able to deal with everything that can be thrown at him for a long time. This game has too many all-inish builds that are specifically designed to destroy standard builds or economically strong builds.
It is not possible for one player to always read correctly the signs, because the same signs can mean different things and require different approaches.
That is why in my opinion blizzard has things like hallucinations, overlord upgraded speed and scans: Because constant scouting is key in this game.
Also note how many rushes are used even at the highest level of gaming. in broodwar a 9 pool or a proxy gate, or a bbs was something casters considered BOLD to do. Because everyone knew how to stop them dead in their tracks. They could still work, but most players would avoid rushing like the plague.
|
Russian Federation367 Posts
I cant believe someone calls SC2 a "luck game". Are you decent at SC2 at all? You can scout almost at every moment of a game with a lot of different units and at BW usually even first scout was denied by some units, so you were leaved guessing what should you do and how much greed you can let to do yourself.
|
On December 29 2014 17:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 17:01 thezanursic wrote:On December 28 2014 02:44 Big J wrote:
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!) Uhmm do you not understand how the BW Tournament structure in Korea worked? Everybody lived in a practice house, to become a low level practice partner you'd have to prove yourself time and time again, to get a shot at actually playing in a KESPA tournament you'd have to win a 126 player bo3 monthly tournament. The Professional player sample might have been small, but the tournament structure was built to have a small player pool. The opposite is true in SC2, the best players often play considerably worse players (Especially Dreamhack and other foreign tournaments), which should in theory inflate their winrates, but it doesn't because there is a bit more luck involved in SC2. I have a question about winrates. I did not know until today that MVP won the same number of games as Flash did during both of their "bonjwa" days, meaning that it took Flash twice as long to do as well as MVP. How many more games does each player in SC2 play compared to BW? More specifically, how infrequent were the games in BW and can we trust that kind of sample size in comparison with the sample size in SC2?
BW games were very frequent because of proleague. Also SC2 was a young game, nobody understood how to play it at a time, when Flash dominated, the game was out for 10+ years.
|
On December 29 2014 15:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 14:29 lichter wrote:On December 29 2014 13:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2014 11:38 JimmiC wrote:
Please define bonjwa, I think lots of the confusion is because different people have a different definition. Isn't it a subjective perception of who we believe to be the best player in the world? Being that's the case, instead of keeping track of length of time or number of trophies, how about we just track how many games during that specific "bonjwa time period" did that person actually play in. You can then measure different players not in how many years or trophies did they seem dominant, but in how many games did they seem dominant. How many games did Flash Dominate in BW during his Bonjwa era and compare it to how many games MVP dominated in SC2 during his bonjwa era. Whoever in their "Bonjwa" time period won more games over time will tell you how much "bonjwa" was instilled into each win by the viewers. Do the same for all the other Bonjwas and we can actually track how often viewers watched someone and called them bonjwa. For example, from his first trophy until his scandal--how many games did Savior play? Now, how about Nestea's 2011-2012 where he was the main zerg winning everything--how many games did Nestea play when he was the "best player in the world." In individual leagues only, in their respective peaks Flash from Ever OSL 09-10 to ABC Mart MSL: 94-31 (75.20%) 6 golds, 2 silvers 605 Days Mvp from GSL January 2011 to WCG 2011: 103-43 (70.55%) 6 golds, 1 silver (+1 if you count Code A but you shouldn't) * does not include Gainward, and Arena of Legends golds, and GeForce silver 344 Days So this is all about MVP doing it in 344 days instead of 605 days?
Also BW had considerably less tournaments especially in 2011 and 2012.FlashBisu/Jaedong dominated, and they would have certainly been the ones to pick those tournaments up if they were to happen.
|
On December 29 2014 20:21 LuckyGnomTV wrote:
I cant believe someone calls SC2 a "luck game". Are you decent at SC2 at all? You can scout almost at every moment of a game with a lot of different units and at BW usually even first scout was denied by some units, so you were leaved guessing what should you do and how much greed you can let to do yourself.
Also, the game is still being figured out and rather incomplete considering the last expansion isn't even out. Check out the SSL (or S2SL as they call it here to let Brood War breathe I guess) for some damn tight play.
|
On December 29 2014 20:21 LuckyGnomTV wrote:
I cant believe someone calls SC2 a "luck game". Are you decent at SC2 at all? You can scout almost at every moment of a game with a lot of different units and at BW usually even first scout was denied by some units, so you were leaved guessing what should you do and how much greed you can let to do yourself.
I think it comes with the concept of RTS that since you don't know everything your opponent's doing, sometimes you have to make decisions which aren't influenced by your opponent. You can't always scout. For example, in PvP, it's really hard to scout between the 4~6 minute mark, which is exactly when one chooses his first tech, whether he wants to expand before adding additional gateways or not, etc. That's why people call it 'rock paper scissors'. Obviously there are many other examples. Hell, even deciding not to scout in/outside your natural for proxies is something that most pro players do to get some extra income, and it's a coinflip if there actually is a proxy. I wish they 'buffed' scouting in some form. Too often you feel like you lost not because your opponent was better than you, but because he was more lucky.
|
On December 29 2014 20:21 LuckyGnomTV wrote:
I cant believe someone calls SC2 a "luck game". Are you decent at SC2 at all? You can scout almost at every moment of a game with a lot of different units and at BW usually even first scout was denied by some units, so you were leaved guessing what should you do and how much greed you can let to do yourself.
Do you have any RTS experience outside sc2? sc2 is the most luck-based RTS game I have played in the last 10 years.
It is Blizzard's biggest priority, we have to deal with it
|
I think it's a very dynamic game with extremely tight timings in certain situations. Missing some key timings will leave your fate to chance sometimes. Easy to learn, hard to master?
|
On December 29 2014 23:43 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 17:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2014 17:01 thezanursic wrote:On December 28 2014 02:44 Big J wrote:
The thing with BW Bonjwas was that the competition was a farce in comparison. It's pretty easy to dominate if the professional player sample is so small. Discuss! (Should have made my own thread I guess. So much insight here!!!!!) Uhmm do you not understand how the BW Tournament structure in Korea worked? Everybody lived in a practice house, to become a low level practice partner you'd have to prove yourself time and time again, to get a shot at actually playing in a KESPA tournament you'd have to win a 126 player bo3 monthly tournament. The Professional player sample might have been small, but the tournament structure was built to have a small player pool. The opposite is true in SC2, the best players often play considerably worse players (Especially Dreamhack and other foreign tournaments), which should in theory inflate their winrates, but it doesn't because there is a bit more luck involved in SC2. I have a question about winrates. I did not know until today that MVP won the same number of games as Flash did during both of their "bonjwa" days, meaning that it took Flash twice as long to do as well as MVP. How many more games does each player in SC2 play compared to BW? More specifically, how infrequent were the games in BW and can we trust that kind of sample size in comparison with the sample size in SC2? BW games were very frequent because of proleague. Also SC2 was a young game, nobody understood how to play it at a time, when Flash dominated, the game was out for 10+ years.
Why compare Mvp to Flash, for the same reasons? Flash wasn't the only Bonjwa of BW...
|
On December 29 2014 23:48 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 15:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2014 14:29 lichter wrote:On December 29 2014 13:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2014 11:38 JimmiC wrote:
Please define bonjwa, I think lots of the confusion is because different people have a different definition. Isn't it a subjective perception of who we believe to be the best player in the world? Being that's the case, instead of keeping track of length of time or number of trophies, how about we just track how many games during that specific "bonjwa time period" did that person actually play in. You can then measure different players not in how many years or trophies did they seem dominant, but in how many games did they seem dominant. How many games did Flash Dominate in BW during his Bonjwa era and compare it to how many games MVP dominated in SC2 during his bonjwa era. Whoever in their "Bonjwa" time period won more games over time will tell you how much "bonjwa" was instilled into each win by the viewers. Do the same for all the other Bonjwas and we can actually track how often viewers watched someone and called them bonjwa. For example, from his first trophy until his scandal--how many games did Savior play? Now, how about Nestea's 2011-2012 where he was the main zerg winning everything--how many games did Nestea play when he was the "best player in the world." In individual leagues only, in their respective peaks Flash from Ever OSL 09-10 to ABC Mart MSL: 94-31 (75.20%) 6 golds, 2 silvers 605 Days Mvp from GSL January 2011 to WCG 2011: 103-43 (70.55%) 6 golds, 1 silver (+1 if you count Code A but you shouldn't) * does not include Gainward, and Arena of Legends golds, and GeForce silver 344 Days So this is all about MVP doing it in 344 days instead of 605 days? Also BW had considerably less tournaments especially in 2011 and 2012.FlashBisu/Jaedong dominated, and they would have certainly been the ones to pick those tournaments up if they were to happen.
I just don't feel comfortable saying someone is better because the venue scheduled the tournaments less frequently than another venue. We need a better metric than win-rate and time perception because it seems whenever actual numbers are put into play the bonjwa title melts away.
Flash seemed unbeatable for the same number of games as MVP and yet it feels right to call Flash Bonjwa because he played over two years instead of one year. Bisu is called a bonjwa despite not winning as much as Flash in premier leagues. I knew that Bonjwa is an arbitrary perception and all, but the moment it becomes tactile it just fades away.
Can we just leave bonjwa in Broodwar?
|
SC2 isn't very mechanically challenging, and the skill ceiling is lower so you get lots of people all around the same level at the top. The game is also more snowbally and there's less comeback potential. Since there's less ways to showcase your skill in SC2 due to the simplified controls it also means there's more build order losses.
In BW the skill ceiling and skill progression was so ridiculous that the rank 1 player could consistently beat the ranks 2-9 80% of the time. In SC2 it's more like anyone in the top 200 beat anyone in the top 200 any day.
|
On December 30 2014 02:00 mishimaBeef wrote:
I think it's a very dynamic game with extremely tight timings in certain situations. Missing some key timings will leave your fate to chance sometimes. Easy to learn, hard to master?
Starcraft 2 is hard to learn, insanely hard to master. There is nothing easy about this game or RTS games in general (except C&C). There's a reason the genre has always been a niche.
|
On December 30 2014 05:32 DemigodcelpH wrote:
SC2 isn't very mechanically challenging, and the skill ceiling is lower so you get lots of people all around the same level at the top. The game is also more snowbally and there's less comeback potential. Since there's less ways to showcase your skill in SC2 due to the simplified controls it also means there's more build order losses.
In BW the skill ceiling and skill progression was so ridiculous that the rank 1 player could consistently beat the ranks 2-9 80% of the time. In SC2 it's more like anyone in the top 200 beat anyone in the top 200 any day.
Which would technically mean that MVP's 70% winrate is worth MUCH more since he could maintain it despite how swingy the games are. Which is why its dumb to make these kinds of comparisons.
|
On December 30 2014 05:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 05:32 DemigodcelpH wrote:
SC2 isn't very mechanically challenging, and the skill ceiling is lower so you get lots of people all around the same level at the top. The game is also more snowbally and there's less comeback potential. Since there's less ways to showcase your skill in SC2 due to the simplified controls it also means there's more build order losses.
In BW the skill ceiling and skill progression was so ridiculous that the rank 1 player could consistently beat the ranks 2-9 80% of the time. In SC2 it's more like anyone in the top 200 beat anyone in the top 200 any day. Which would technically mean that MVP's 70% winrate is worth MUCH more since he could maintain it despite how swingy the games are. Which is why its dumb to make these kinds of comparisons.
There's nothing about MVP having a 70% win-rate under his accomplishments listing, for how long it was (important), and who it was against (important). Also whatever win-rate MVP had it was against mostly C-class players due to how SC2 was structured which is in contrast to bonjwas being distinguished for holding these stats against S-class players. For BW to get a shot at actually playing in a KESPA tournament you'd have to win a 126 player bo3 monthly tournament.
Also for comparison Flash ended BW with above 70% win-rate in all matchups for all time (Mvp's all time win-rate is in the 50s) and he played BW longer than MvP played SC2. He also had the highest ELO of all time and broke the elo record six consecutive times. Jaedong is 19–3 on Katarina and was the top-1 Zerg player in the rank for 43 months and all of them straight. Savior dominated for the good part of a year and at one point went 12-0 in Bo3s vs Terrans that had 70-90% winrates in TvZ. Literally unstoppable. Most players like that in BW also had 80% winrates in their mirror matchups.
These are the kind of accomplishments players did in BW, and they did them consistently. That's what SC2 generally lacks. Consistency. The game is volatile, mechanics aren't important because they're so simple, and the unit designs feature a lot of hard-counters.
So you get a situation where the best player in SC2 one week can easily lose to B-class players next week.
|
On December 28 2014 03:48 Friedobert wrote:
MVP was a Bonjwa, also, savior wasn't brood war's first Bonjwa, it was IloveOov. 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.
1. Boxer is a Bonjwa and came before iloveoov.
2. NaDa is a Bonjwa and came before iloveoov.
3. The "term" Bonjwa was created for savior.
|
On December 30 2014 05:32 DemigodcelpH wrote:
SC2 isn't very mechanically challenging, and the skill ceiling is lower so you get lots of people all around the same level at the top. The game is also more snowbally and there's less comeback potential. Since there's less ways to showcase your skill in SC2 due to the simplified controls it also means there's more build order losses.
In BW the skill ceiling and skill progression was so ridiculous that the rank 1 player could consistently beat the ranks 2-9 80% of the time. In SC2 it's more like anyone in the top 200 beat anyone in the top 200 any day.
Yet again , in sc2 99% of the players have mechanics that are blatantly pathetic compared to the ones of a top korean. 99% is up to something like high masters, but even a mid gm(eu) player can admit that there's a huge difference between him and an established progamer.
Bw feels like it's much harder especially for a new player. Not being able to control multiple buildings and more than 12 units at a time was one of the most unbearable things when I played bw as a casual, and the fact that they changed it was one of the things that made me love sc2 at first.
Maybe they should try to find a way to make the game more challenging at the highest levels, without making it so difficult for the newbies. That would help at increasing sc2's playerbase too.
|
On December 30 2014 06:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 05:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 30 2014 05:32 DemigodcelpH wrote:
SC2 isn't very mechanically challenging, and the skill ceiling is lower so you get lots of people all around the same level at the top. The game is also more snowbally and there's less comeback potential. Since there's less ways to showcase your skill in SC2 due to the simplified controls it also means there's more build order losses.
In BW the skill ceiling and skill progression was so ridiculous that the rank 1 player could consistently beat the ranks 2-9 80% of the time. In SC2 it's more like anyone in the top 200 beat anyone in the top 200 any day. Which would technically mean that MVP's 70% winrate is worth MUCH more since he could maintain it despite how swingy the games are. Which is why its dumb to make these kinds of comparisons. There's nothing about MVP having a 70% win-rate under his accomplishments listing, for how long it was (important), and who it was against (important). Also whatever win-rate MVP had it was against mostly C-class players due to how SC2 was structured which is in contrast to bonjwas being distinguished for holding these stats against S-class players. For BW to get a shot at actually playing in a KESPA tournament you'd have to win a 126 player bo3 monthly tournament. Also for comparison Flash ended BW with above 70% win-rate in all matchups for all time (Mvp's all time win-rate is in the 50s) and he played BW longer than MvP played SC2. He also had the highest ELO of all time and broke the elo record six consecutive times. Jaedong is 19–3 on Katarina and was the top-1 Zerg player in the rank for 43 months and all of them straight. Savior dominated for the good part of a year and at one point went 12-0 in Bo3s vs Terrans that had 70-90% winrates in TvZ. Literally unstoppable. Most players like that in BW also had 80% winrates in their mirror matchups. These are the kind of accomplishments players did in BW, and they did them consistently. That's what SC2 generally lacks. Consistency. The game is volatile, mechanics aren't important because they're so simple, and the unit designs feature a lot of hard-counters. So you get a situation where the best player in SC2 one week can easily lose to B-class players next week.
Here are some stats from liquidpedia
Flash:
Flash holds the longest winning streak for both TvT (22 wins) and TvP (13 wins) in rated KeSPA matches.
Flash was the top-ranked Terran player on KESPA from March 2008 through August 2009, and then from October 2009 to July 2012.
Flash has the highest Elo rating record of all time. He broke the Elo record six consecutive times.
Flash is the only player to have an Elo peak in the 2400s.
Flash had a 12 game win streak in TvZ games, spanning from the start of Round 1 of the 09-10 Proleague until partway through Round 2. His streak was broken by Hyun in a Proleague match between MBCGame HERO and KT Rolster.
Flash holds the highest KESPA Point record ever, with 4,292.5 points in September 2010.
Flash is the first player in history to reach both individual league finals 3 times in a row.
457-180 (71.74%) winrate
Jaedong:
Lee Jae Dong has a first record on the longest winning streak in the MSL — 11 wins, the second are Lee Yoon Yeol (NaDa) and Lee Yong Ho (Flash) with 10 wins.
Lee Jae Dong is the second player after Hong Jin Ho ([NC]...YellOw) to get into MSL Final without a loss. Hong Jin Ho has 7 wins in the KPGA Tour 1st, Lee Jae Dong has 10 wins in the NATE MSL.
Lee Jae Dong is on 18 games winstreak vs. hite SPARKYZ (2008.10.04–current), two All-Kills and 5 Ace games included; overall record 23–5 (82.1%), 5–1 in Aces. He is extremely strong vs. hite’s Terrans: 12–2.
Lee Jae Dong was the first progamer who played 200 games in Proleague (2010.03.16 vs. YellOw[ArnC]).
20-6 in bo5's
468–215 (68.5%) winrate
Savior:+ Show Spoiler +
here are some examples how the best players in sc2 did in bw
MC 1-9
MVP 30-46
Nestea 11-21
|
On December 30 2014 07:13 sabas123 wrote:
here are some examples how the best players in sc2 did in bw
MC 1-9
MVP 30-46
Nestea 11-21
what's the reason to bring these up? I thought this thread wasn't supposed to become "which game is better"...
|
O god, the BW circlejerk is here.
SC2 and BW are different games deal with it.
Flash with all that APM and mechanics on BW has poor micro compared to other SC2 Terran's that never shined in BW, after over 1 year of playing SC2.
|
On December 30 2014 07:24 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 07:13 sabas123 wrote:
here are some examples how the best players in sc2 did in bw
MC 1-9
MVP 30-46
Nestea 11-21
what's the reason to bring these up? I thought this thread wasn't supposed to become "which game is better"...
It's the ~ if you didn't get any results in BW your irrelevant ~ argument.
Players can only grow and improve through BW, it's that simple.
|
On December 28 2014 03:08 H0i wrote:MVP wasn't a bonjwa?
I think he definitely was a bonjwa. He dominated Wings of liberty.
What was it like 4 GSL titles and 6 or 7 finals? I mean if thats not Bonjwa then what is?
|
On December 30 2014 07:57 sibs wrote:
O god, the BW circlejerk is here.
SC2 and BW are different games deal with it.
Flash with all that APM and mechanics on BW has poor micro compared to other SC2 Terran's that never shined in BW, after over 1 year of playing SC2.
I've played more SC2 than BW. It's not necessarily a "BW circlejerk". It's more that the difference is that some SC2 defenders tend to become upset at the slightest criticism in regards to the major flaws of the game and are usually people who got into the StarCraft scene beginning with SC2, and don't know their history or necessarily what people are talking about.
|
On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb.
Barcelona's dominance is one of the most incredible footballing feats. It made Atletico's win that spectacular, that's why you want Bonjwas. Just like Bisu dethroning Savior was incredible.
|
On December 30 2014 09:51 Espers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb. lol you serious? La Liga's popularity grew masisvely with Barcelona's dominance, and made Atletico's win that much more spectacular. of course you want dominance.
It's about how the teams perform internationally, not on a national level what will bring attention. La Liga itself is boring as fuck to watch, i don't know what you are speaking about, the Atletico last year was the only thing to spice it up on many years of utter and complete dominance, where the matches themselves were pointless to watch.
Of course, dumb people will gather around the stars and loathe them, while people who actually care about the football itself and the experience of watching good football would just facepalm.
|
On December 30 2014 09:16 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 07:57 sibs wrote:
O god, the BW circlejerk is here.
SC2 and BW are different games deal with it.
Flash with all that APM and mechanics on BW has poor micro compared to other SC2 Terran's that never shined in BW, after over 1 year of playing SC2. I've played more SC2 than BW. It's not necessarily a "BW circlejerk". It's more that the difference is that some SC2 defenders tend to become upset at the slightest criticism in regards to the major flaws of the game and are usually people who got into the StarCraft scene beginning with SC2, and don't know their history or necessarily what people are talking about.
No, it's pretty much a circlejerk, there's no reason to bring successful SC2 pros BW score into the discussion, Bisu has only 55% Winrate in SC2 losing to players such as Kysarr this doesn't mean anything, you can see the hyperbole on your replies:
In BW the skill ceiling and skill progression was so ridiculous that the rank 1 player could consistently beat the ranks 2-9 80% of the time. In SC2 it's more like anyone in the top 200 beat anyone in the top 200 any day.
First the BW part, Flash only had a 71% winrate, so no he couldn't have 80% win rate vs ranks 2-9, if you mean for a time period, then you could say the same about SC2 , Nestea has won a GSL losing 0 games iirc, lots of players probably have 70%+ winrate for time periods on SC2 , even long ones
(Under these filters, Mvp is 249–104 (70.54%) in games and 118–36 (76.62%) in matches.)
The SC2 part, just no, having a player ranked 150-200th beat any top player is a major major upset, upsets happened in BW as well, I recall boxer losing to some peruvian on wcg?
However I do agree it's harder to have an as high winrate on SC2 as it is on BW, but the reason isn't just because the game is more volatile and more accessible, heres some other reasons:
1) You have patches, and expansions being released still.
2) There's way more tournaments and games.
3) It's actually more competitive! As in you have more people playing.
By the way the game being more accessible is a great thing IMO, seeing BW armies cross each other and no player being able to send a simple attack command was hilariously sad.
|
On December 30 2014 09:53 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 09:51 Espers wrote:On December 28 2014 13:29 lichter wrote:
The desire for bonjwas is stupid. Why would you want one person to win everything? If anything the sport becomes more of a farce (see La Liga beforr Atletico last year) when it is dominated.
As usual threads like these are dumb. lol you serious? La Liga's popularity grew masisvely with Barcelona's dominance, and made Atletico's win that much more spectacular. of course you want dominance. It's about how the teams perform internationally, not on a national level what will bring attention. La Liga itself is boring as fuck to watch, i don't know what you are speaking about, the Atletico last year was the only thing to spice it up on many years of utter and complete dominance, where the matches themselves were pointless to watch. Of course, dumb people will gather around the stars and loathe them, while people who actually care about the football itself and the experience of watching good football would just facepalm.
La Liga is an extreme case, over 5 years of pure dominance. Still, I enjoyed Barcelona's reign up to a point.
I loved Savior's bonjwa times in BW, it was incredible.
|
On December 30 2014 09:15 SuperFanBoy wrote:I think he definitely was a bonjwa. He dominated Wings of liberty. What was it like 4 GSL titles and 6 or 7 finals? I mean if thats not Bonjwa then what is?
Bonjwa is not about cumulative titles, it's more about doing them back-to-back-to-back and that aura of invincibility. Sure MVP was very successful and innovative throughout his career but he didn't dominate an extended period of time. There was a lot of GSL titles to go around (2011 had one every few months). Even then he couldn't string them together and even went to code A for a bit. The other big mark against MVP was that he never did much for his team in GSTL. He was never unstoppable in the same way Flash/Savior were in their prime in both proleague and starleagues.
|
On December 30 2014 10:44 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 09:15 SuperFanBoy wrote:On December 28 2014 03:08 H0i wrote:MVP wasn't a bonjwa? I think he definitely was a bonjwa. He dominated Wings of liberty. What was it like 4 GSL titles and 6 or 7 finals? I mean if thats not Bonjwa then what is? Bonjwa is not about cumulative titles, it's more about doing them back-to-back-to-back and that aura of invincibility. Sure MVP was very successful and innovative throughout his career but he didn't dominate an extended period of time. There was a lot of GSL titles to go around (2011 had one every few months). Even then he couldn't string them together and even went to code A for a bit. The other big mark against MVP was that he never did much for his team in GSTL. He was never unstoppable in the same way Flash/Savior were in their prime in both proleague and starleagues.
Flash won the same amount of games with the same win % as MVP, he just played less games per year.
MVP also maintained a high win percentage in a swingier game, making his high winrate more impressive than Flash's.
Can we just accept that bonjwa is a BW term and it has no place in a different tourney setup.
|
|
|
On December 30 2014 12:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 10:44 Scarecrow wrote:On December 30 2014 09:15 SuperFanBoy wrote:On December 28 2014 03:08 H0i wrote:MVP wasn't a bonjwa? I think he definitely was a bonjwa. He dominated Wings of liberty. What was it like 4 GSL titles and 6 or 7 finals? I mean if thats not Bonjwa then what is? Bonjwa is not about cumulative titles, it's more about doing them back-to-back-to-back and that aura of invincibility. Sure MVP was very successful and innovative throughout his career but he didn't dominate an extended period of time. There was a lot of GSL titles to go around (2011 had one every few months). Even then he couldn't string them together and even went to code A for a bit. The other big mark against MVP was that he never did much for his team in GSTL. He was never unstoppable in the same way Flash/Savior were in their prime in both proleague and starleagues. Flash won the same amount of games with the same win % as MVP, he just played less games per year.
Wrong on both counts. Flash played more games per year during his prime than MVP. He was basically dominating 3 simultaneous leagues.
Flash went about 78% over a 17 month period (186-52).
MVP went 66% over fewer games (150-77) from January 2011 -> June 2012 (an 18 month period that includes almost all his tourney wins)
This is where all the nauseating Flash hype comes from. Imagine trying to win a BoX vs a guy who's been consistently winning about 4 in 5 games vs top tier progamers. He had a 19 game win streak vs zerg and a 17 win one vs Protoss and holds the ELO records for XvsZ, XvsP and XvsT. It was the equivalent of S2SL and GSL running at the same time and a player making the finals of both for 3 straight seasons.
|
On December 30 2014 10:02 sibs wrote:
No, it's pretty much a circlejerk, there's no reason to bring successful SC2 pros BW score into the discussion, Bisu has only 55% Winrate in SC2 losing to players such as Kysarr this doesn't mean anything
I didn't bring that in, but it's relevant because it demonstrates SC2's comparatively lower skill ceiling, lack of mechanics leaving less ways for good players to distinguish themselves, and volatile nature (mechanics are all normalized due to be easy, so even at the highest level a good amount of games can go to build order losses and coin flips at a higher rate than its predecessor).
|
Are you serious? MVP was nothing like Boxer, in fact MVP can't be compared to any other player because his reign of dominance was unparalleled. He dominated the biggest tournament (GSL) 4 times champion and 6 time finalist. When the hell did Boxer ever come close to doing something like that?
Flash's run seems to be longer than MVP's but MVP played more games and won more Titles than flash.. Lets not forget about MVP's first place WCS, IEM, MLG etc..etc..
MVP is the game genie terran because he was constantly changing the meta and inventing new strategies.. MVP is bonjwa and probably the most dominant bonjwa.
|
On December 30 2014 12:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 10:44 Scarecrow wrote:On December 30 2014 09:15 SuperFanBoy wrote:On December 28 2014 03:08 H0i wrote:MVP wasn't a bonjwa? I think he definitely was a bonjwa. He dominated Wings of liberty. What was it like 4 GSL titles and 6 or 7 finals? I mean if thats not Bonjwa then what is? Bonjwa is not about cumulative titles, it's more about doing them back-to-back-to-back and that aura of invincibility. Sure MVP was very successful and innovative throughout his career but he didn't dominate an extended period of time. There was a lot of GSL titles to go around (2011 had one every few months). Even then he couldn't string them together and even went to code A for a bit. The other big mark against MVP was that he never did much for his team in GSTL. He was never unstoppable in the same way Flash/Savior were in their prime in both proleague and starleagues. Flash won the same amount of games with the same win % as MVP, he just played less games per year. MVP also maintained a high win percentage in a swingier game, making his high winrate more impressive than Flash's. Can we just accept that bonjwa is a BW term and it has no place in a different tourney setup.
MVP did well mostly when his race had absurd edges on the others. Flash dominated in an old game with pure technical ability.
|
On December 30 2014 09:16 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 07:57 sibs wrote:
O god, the BW circlejerk is here.
SC2 and BW are different games deal with it.
Flash with all that APM and mechanics on BW has poor micro compared to other SC2 Terran's that never shined in BW, after over 1 year of playing SC2. I've played more SC2 than BW. It's not necessarily a "BW circlejerk". It's more that the difference is that some SC2 defenders tend to become upset at the slightest criticism in regards to the major flaws of the game and are usually people who got into the StarCraft scene beginning with SC2, and don't know their history or necessarily what people are talking about.
Yeah, what a sensitive way not to upset "SC2 defenders". Opening your post with your own subjective opinion about "major flaws".
|
On December 30 2014 18:34 SuperFanBoy wrote:Are you serious? MVP was nothing like Boxer, in fact MVP can't be compared to any other player because his reign of dominance was unparalleled. He dominated the biggest tournament (GSL) 4 times champion and 6 time finalist. When the hell did Boxer ever come close to doing something like that? Flash's run seems to be longer than MVP's but MVP played more games and won more Titles than flash.. Lets not forget about MVP's first place WCS, IEM, MLG etc..etc.. MVP is the game genie terran because he was constantly changing the meta and inventing new strategies.. MVP is bonjwa and probably the most dominant bonjwa.
rofl living up to your id, sadly the numbers don't back up what you're saying. Flash won the equivalent of 6 GSL's, had a better winrate over more games in a more balanced, established scene.
As for boxer coming close. He won 3 Korean majors (7 finals) and back to back WCGs. Definitely comparable and had more back-to-back results. MVP was always a contender but failed to string championships together. He even did a stint in code A during his supposed prime. Boxer made 3 OSL finals in a row.
|
lol comparing god to a woongjin terran haha
|
Its also the fact that the bw pro scene was much more competitve during flash's reign than the SC2 scene was during MVP's. SC2 is a small niche game compared to what BW was.
|
On December 30 2014 21:50 Elroi wrote:
Its also the fact that the bw pro scene was much more competitve during flash's reign than the SC2 scene was during MVP's. SC2 is a small niche game compared to what BW was.
no way man, do you know how many people in bronze play sc2? way bigger player pool, more countries playing, clearly more competitive game.
|
I think we can agree this thread is over, there's no more relevant discussion (if there even was to begin with?) to be had. It's BW vs SC2 under a thin veil, and once again both sides lost.
I do like the MVP to Boxer analogy for accuracy of domination over a budding game, problem is I don't know if anyone can project how long SC2 will last.
|
Bisutopia19295 Posts
Eveyone is arguing over Flash vs MVP. Does anyone actually address and discuss the issues the OP brings up? Let’s get this back on track.
On December 28 2014 02:29 perspicaciousinnate wrote:
What do you guys think of this theory?
Because Blizzard incorporated queuing into starcraft 2, APM has become much less important. (APM is still very important but just less so.)
In starcraft 1, without queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 400 APM to attain a certain level of control. In contrast, in starcraft 2, with queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 300 APM to attain the same level of control. Since, there are more pros with 300 APM, it's less likely you'll get a bonjwa. On the other hand, the players would can get 400 APM are very few so bonjwa's are possible.
Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. Unfortunately, anyone can eventually figure out the counters to builds. Preparation has become that much important and this has leveled out the playing field a bit because it becomes a matter of how much time you put in. It relies less on latent ability.
We see this in practice. Jaedong and Flash with their insane multitasking and APM were able to attain dominance for a long time. In starcraft 2, it's definitely helped them get into the top 20. But, no one will ever attain bonjwa status.
Blizzard for the next patch or game, should think about either 2 things. It should get rid of queuing so that APM is more important. Or, it should add another component to the game play so that additional APM is required.
1. APM value in SC2 compared to SC1
APM in SC1 I use a quote from 2005:
The community has learned that spamming constantly is not necessary or even good. Dominant players such as Iloveoov & Savior[gm], arguably two the two best players ever, typically have around 250apm, compared to Nada’s 500 or so. So, yes, apm is important, but only when it goes towards significant actions. 100apm is low, and will affect your multitasking ability greatly. –KnickKnack
Furthermore, current Brood War player by.hero has the highest APM among active players and is not a clear cut #1.
Conclusion: “apm is important, but only when it goes towards significant actions.” This applies to both SC1 and SC2. Based on this opinion, I do not believe APM has become any more or less important in SC2 and do not believe the higher APM in either game dictates whether one can become a bonjwa.
2. Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2.
Obviously this is an opinion by the OP and I do not share this same thought. I believe that in BOTH games strategy and builds hold the same importance. Let’s take for instance PvP in SC1.
Scenario #1:
If a player decides to go 10gate/12 assimilator/12pylon they have chosen a specific build that gets them gas quicker and indicates passing up extra minerals and an earlier second gate in order to get a robo for reavers/obs/shuttle.
Scenario #2:
The player now decides to go 10gate/12pylon/core/assimilator they have chosen a specific build that allows them to get a second gate fast and results in a more aggressive build if they macro dragoons a maximum efficiency in the first 9 minutes of the game. This weakens the player against dt builds, but can be stronger than fast robo builds. The late assimilator also opens the opportunity for a scouting probe that was sent out by the opponent after the 9 pylon to proxy the players gas and put them behind.
Both Scenario #1 and #2 describe build orders that define how the early game is going to play out in a PvP. Now the 8 minute mark is hit and it’s time to decide when to expand. Using scouting to the best of your ability you must ask yourself, has the player been producing units at maximum efficiency (meaning largest army possible in 8 minutes) or did they choose to expand, should you attack and be aggressive, should your expansion be taken early due to good fortunes, or should you wait to the safe 9 minute mark and sit defensively as you expand.
Unfortunately, anyone can eventually figure out the counters to builds.
Fortunately, a great player doesn’t lose because their build is countered. They shift their game plan in reaction to their opponent’s decisions. Unless a player is allin, there is always a solution. The best players will find them.
Conclusion: SC1 and SC2 both require practicing builds to death and developing strategy on how to react to your opponent after your build orders are no longer useful and are now relying on your overall game plan. I personally believe anyone who claims it’s more important in either game has a lack of understanding in the other.
3. Blizzard for the next patch or game, should think about either 2 things. It should get rid of queuing so that APM is more important. Or, it should add another component to the game play so that additional APM is required.
As mentioned earlier, I do not believe APM is the deciding factor. Removing queuing is just adding more responsibility to the player and yes it would impact the game, but many argue for less mundane mechanics because it allows them to focus better on strategy instead of also being responsible for base maintenance. Adding queuing back in would be counter intuitive to this attitude.
As far as adding in useful APM mechanics, I am still a firm believer that the unit clumping design in SC2 is an issue. I believe Blizzard mentioned doing in house testing with unit spacing added in and that the results did not improve the game. Whether the previous statement is true or not, I’d sure like to see a spaced out army as a viewer, but I digress.
Conclusion I believe adding more APM tasks would not help SC2 have bonjwas. That is just my opinion.
Closing Thoughts: The solution to SC2 having bonjwas is not as simple as APM. I think there are reasons we could pick at though. For now, I choose to just enjoy watching the game evolve. LoTV will change things significantly. If things don’t improve from there, then I’m up for having this discussion at a deeper level.
|
where do you find time to do that ...
|
On December 30 2014 22:53 BisuDagger wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Eveyone is arguing over Flash vs MVP. Does anyone actually address and discuss the issues the OP brings up? Let’s get this back on track. On December 28 2014 02:29 perspicaciousinnate wrote:
What do you guys think of this theory?
Because Blizzard incorporated queuing into starcraft 2, APM has become much less important. (APM is still very important but just less so.)
In starcraft 1, without queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 400 APM to attain a certain level of control. In contrast, in starcraft 2, with queuing, a pro would hypothetically need 300 APM to attain the same level of control. Since, there are more pros with 300 APM, it's less likely you'll get a bonjwa. On the other hand, the players would can get 400 APM are very few so bonjwa's are possible.
Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. In theory, this sounds like a better game. Unfortunately, anyone can eventually figure out the counters to builds. Preparation has become that much important and this has leveled out the playing field a bit because it becomes a matter of how much time you put in. It relies less on latent ability.
We see this in practice. Jaedong and Flash with their insane multitasking and APM were able to attain dominance for a long time. In starcraft 2, it's definitely helped them get into the top 20. But, no one will ever attain bonjwa status.
Blizzard for the next patch or game, should think about either 2 things. It should get rid of queuing so that APM is more important. Or, it should add another component to the game play so that additional APM is required. 1. APM value in SC2 compared to SC1 APM in SC1 I use a quote from 2005: The community has learned that spamming constantly is not necessary or even good. Dominant players such as Iloveoov & Savior[gm], arguably two the two best players ever, typically have around 250apm, compared to Nada’s 500 or so. So, yes, apm is important, but only when it goes towards significant actions. 100apm is low, and will affect your multitasking ability greatly. –KnickKnack Furthermore, current Brood War player by.hero has the highest APM among active players and is not a clear cut #1. Conclusion: “apm is important, but only when it goes towards significant actions.” This applies to both SC1 and SC2. Based on this opinion, I do not believe APM has become any more or less important in SC2 and do not believe the higher APM in either game dictates whether one can become a bonjwa. 2. Strategy and builds have become so much more important in starcraft 2. Obviously this is an opinion by the OP and I do not share this same thought. I believe that in BOTH games strategy and builds hold the same importance. Let’s take for instance PvP in SC1. Scenario #1: If a player decides to go 10gate/12 assimilator/12pylon they have chosen a specific build that gets them gas quicker and indicates passing up extra minerals and an earlier second gate in order to get a robo for reavers/obs/shuttle. Scenario #2: The player now decides to go 10gate/12pylon/core/assimilator they have chosen a specific build that allows them to get a second gate fast and results in a more aggressive build if they macro dragoons a maximum efficiency in the first 9 minutes of the game. This weakens the player against dt builds, but can be stronger than fast robo builds. The late assimilator also opens the opportunity for a scouting probe that was sent out by the opponent after the 9 pylon to proxy the players gas and put them behind. Both Scenario #1 and #2 describe build orders that define how the early game is going to play out in a PvP. Now the 8 minute mark is hit and it’s time to decide when to expand. Using scouting to the best of your ability you must ask yourself, has the player been producing units at maximum efficiency (meaning largest army possible in 8 minutes) or did they choose to expand, should you attack and be aggressive, should your expansion be taken early due to good fortunes, or should you wait to the safe 9 minute mark and sit defensively as you expand. Unfortunately, anyone can eventually figure out the counters to builds. Fortunately, a great player doesn’t lose because their build is countered. They shift their game plan in reaction to their opponent’s decisions. Unless a player is allin, there is always a solution. The best players will find them. Conclusion: SC1 and SC2 both require practicing builds to death and developing strategy on how to react to your opponent after your build orders are no longer useful and are now relying on your overall game plan. I personally believe anyone who claims it’s more important in either game has a lack of understanding in the other. 3. Blizzard for the next patch or game, should think about either 2 things. It should get rid of queuing so that APM is more important. Or, it should add another component to the game play so that additional APM is required. As mentioned earlier, I do not believe APM is the deciding factor. Removing queuing is just adding more responsibility to the player and yes it would impact the game, but many argue for less mundane mechanics because it allows them to focus better on strategy instead of also being responsible for base maintenance. Adding queuing back in would be counter intuitive to this attitude. As far as adding in useful APM mechanics, I am still a firm believer that the unit clumping design in SC2 is an issue. I believe Blizzard mentioned doing in house testing with unit spacing added in and that the results did not improve the game. Whether the previous statement is true or not, I’d sure like to see a spaced out army as a viewer, but I digress. Conclusion I believe adding more APM tasks would not help SC2 have bonjwas. That is just my opinion. Closing Thoughts: The solution to SC2 having bonjwas is not as simple as APM. I think there are reasons we could pick at though. For now, I choose to just enjoy watching the game evolve. LoTV will change things significantly. If things don’t improve from there, then I’m up for having this discussion at a deeper level.
Finally, some sensible words, Thank you!
BW and WC3 needed time to develop and the game-play changed so much from when they were originally released. I'm eagerly looking forward to what the LoTV Era has in store for us.
|
never followed brood war, how good was savior? must have been really shocking when he was caught in that match fixing thing then huh
|
On December 31 2014 00:08 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:never followed brood war, how good was savior? must have been really shocking when he was caught in that match fixing thing then huh
he was caught for helping setup the cheating looong after his prime, I think the biggest shock was a payer with such an amazing history got involved.
to go back on the apm topic again.
I think most people don't use the term eapm (effective apm) since this is the value that you have left when you filter all the spam out of apm. and when you follow that chart you see a much clearer corralation btw apm and results
|
What do you guys think of this theory?
Because Blizzard incorporated queuing into starcraft 2, APM has become much less important
Made my day.
SC2 haters trying to look like they know what they are talking about, comparing it to BW they never played, it never gets old.
It's more that the difference is that some SC2 defenders tend to become upset at the slightest criticism in regards to the major flaws of the game
Yep. Like queuing :D BW never had such "flaw"!
|
On December 31 2014 00:08 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:never followed brood war, how good was savior? must have been really shocking when he was caught in that match fixing thing then huh
savior was good enough to destroy the whole scene
|
Japan11286 Posts
On December 31 2014 00:08 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:never followed brood war, how good was savior? must have been really shocking when he was caught in that match fixing thing then huh
He was good enough to overturn the overwhelming tide of Zerg-killing Terrans virtually single-handedly. People can debate about map balance and competition but no one can deny that he stopped the great players who eat zerg for breakfast in his prime.
|
On December 31 2014 00:08 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:never followed brood war, how good was savior? must have been really shocking when he was caught in that match fixing thing then huh
savior was no1 ranking for a ridiculously long time, i don't think anyone in sc2 was close to it- in fact iirc people started to use the term bonjwa for savior, even though he wasn't the first bonjwa. won 4 major tournaments. made iloveoov and other terrans his bitch (tvz was considered really hard for the zerg, and iloveoov had ridiculously good tvz). and around that time zergs weren't achieving anything, but he changed it all. also he had a lot of clever builds, and he alone changed the metagame around.
|
On December 28 2014 04:31 Neemi wrote:
What all Bonjwa's in BW shared was that at their peak form, they had a single year when they won over 70% of their games. Only Flash (2009-2011) and Jaedong (2008-2010) managed to do so multiple years. The reason they won was different, however. Boxer won through gamesense, Nada and Iloveoov overpowered people through mechanics/macro, Savior set up superior engagements and used better strategies, and Flash was the ultimate weapon. Interestingly enough, Savior had one of the lowest APM's, so it's not just mechanics that allowed people to dominate.
Now let's consider the number of games. I think Nada played the most games in his career at 730 games, a career that stretches about 9 years. MC has already played almost 2000 registered games in his career. At the peak of BW (~2009) the best players played about 160 games per year. Zest played 304 games in 2014. Life in his peak from July 2012 to March 2013 played 318 games. Mvp played 351 games in 2011, even winning 71% of them, similar to the Bonjwa's in BW. They all play twice as many games in the same time.
I believe that part of the reason why the Bonjwa's seemed as dominant as they were, is that they had adequate time to prepare for each game, removing much variance from the equation. They were all extremely solid all-round players, but what set them apart was their ability to prepare well in best-of-sets against their opponents, or even just for PL games. No matter how bad Flash plays in general in other tournaments, he's never really had a bad PL record yet because he prepares well for those games, and even Jaedong carried Team 8 through Ace Matches. Stork also had the most success in PL, even when he didn't seem to be able to win games at all.
Because of the sheer number of games, it's mostly about gamesense (Taeja, Mvp, Life, Zest) or insane mechanics (Innovation, soO) or micro (Maru, PartinG), skills that translate into an advantage in every game, that allow players to win more often and set themselves apart. But even they can't remain undefeated for an entire month with multiple high-profile matches, which is something that happened quite a few times back in BW.
I have to upvote this one.
|
On December 31 2014 00:45 sabas123 wrote:
I think most people don't use the term eapm (effective apm) since this is the value that you have left when you filter all the spam out of apm. and when you follow that chart you see a much clearer corralation btw apm and results
Most BW and SC2 fanatics who follow the scene vigorously know the difference. EPM and APM have had lengthy discussion in both the SC2 and BW part of this forum.
If people would just stop preaching and start have discussions and listing to what the others are saying, instead of bum-rushing topics, it would improve these topics a thousandfold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/HawaiianPig/TLFE/saviordifference.png)
