|
On December 30 2016 23:06 Freezard wrote:
Curious why the author says that BW feels easier to play than SC2. Makes no sense to me. Also remember when you could build Barracks before Supply Depot in SC2 beta? Well you can still do that in BW, I hate how they limited the strategy in such ways in SC2. I think the game was actually at its best during beta.
The reason for this decision was because they listened to their player base. Not the specific suggestions, but the specific complaints. This need to fix the game based on what a collection of vocal players complained about instead of designing it without player experience in mind is one of the biggest problems with SC2's design.
However, call a spade a spade. Continually comparing the two will do nothing but lead to a discussion about which game was better. They are both good games, for their own separate reasons. No one says American Football is bad because FIFA futbol is better.
|
On January 04 2017 23:44 NonY wrote:
Why do you need something weird like "there aren't bonjwas in SC2 like there were in BW" to "prove" that the skill ceiling of SC2 was reached? Why not just watch any SC2 game ever and observe all the mistakes both players make, even at the highest level of play, and then conclude that the ceiling hasn't been reached? This isn't something that has to be so difficult to observe. It's super clear: progamers are nowhere near perfect at SC2. Like not even remotely close unless it's just a super short game of all-ins. So how can you even think about skill ceilings?
what i mean is that many people were able to reach the maximum this explain why you see every years a different progamer, it's more easy to cap the skill on SC2 than BW
On January 05 2017 02:37 MoosyDoosy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 22:49 Charoisaur wrote:On December 30 2016 21:59 shadymmj wrote:
one thing where i disagree with the article is the claim that sc2 has more strategy.
i've played a lot of sc2, watched a lot of BW.
i can always call games in sc2 with decent accuracy, say which strategy is good against which because it's fairly cut and dry as to what beats what.
i have learned not to call BW games too early except in zvz and pvp. so often you can win a battle but lose the war. I think what the article means isn't that sc2 offers more strategy but that strategy is more important and decides more games. in BW a lot of games just get decided by mechanics, there's a lot of strategic decisions you can make but I feel it doesn't make the difference between win and loss as often as in sc2. In sc2 when I analyze a replay of me or a pro-level game it's most of the time a few errors in decision-making that made the difference between win and loss. Of course it also happens that you lose just because your opponent has better mechanics but I feel it's not as often as in BW. Yeaaaa this. In mirror matchups if u and the opponent went for the same build ur dead if u macro 1 sec worse. In sc2 theres a lot of things you can do in comparison to pull the game back. But tbh i like it better with a higher mechanical skill ceiling. It makes you really really appreciate pros and what they're able to do. In sc2 that divide is a lot less clear.
that's another reason why the skill cieling is far higher in BW, you have to master more parts of the game, not only the strategic aspect
|
8751 Posts
On January 05 2017 03:38 Euphorbus wrote:
I never said that. In fact, 10 years ago, I would argue against the concept of a skill ceiling. When everyone was talking about a skill ceiling, I objected since I realized they wouldn't probably not reach it, but they would still feel the effect.
I don't think you will ever hit a skill ceiling in the average competitive video games. But that doesn't mean they have the same spectrum of skill.
absolutely pointless trivial bullshit. you wasted so much time just to come to this, that you have nothing useful to say at all. and this garmer guy is so dumb i cant believe it's not intentional trolling. i cant even tell
|
lol@nony
Myself dont see the pointless in that quote nony did.
Alot of people know, ALOT of people know that the skill ceiling isnt reached in broodwar nor sc2 and many other games. Sure thats a good thing but thats not what matters in the end or overall, what matters is WHAT SKILL THE PLAYER IS USING. Arguing that the skillceiling is high is pure crap, argue instead WHAT SKILL IS BEING USED HERE.
So if someone is writing bullshit its nony imo.
|
All I was saying is that I concede the point that current top SC2 players make meaningful mistakes. But I don't think that fact is a refutation of the core issue. I even said that 10 years ago while you didn't seem so sure.
|
Loved the article will follow your youtube, very excited topic!
|
Didnt people outside of the fervor of teamliquid think that the game was too similar to starcraft one? I recall a few reviewers thought that was a negative attribute. The mechanics both games use are almost exactly the same.
People are bringing up MBS as if that were some kind of great difference. In this corner you can select twelve buildings by double clicking, and in the other corner, you must click each twelve times and hold the shift key.
Threads and articles like this merely exist on TL for people to reignite a made up war between the two games.
|
On January 05 2017 09:19 Foxxan wrote:
lol@nony
Myself dont see the pointless in that quote nony did.
Alot of people know, ALOT of people know that the skill ceiling isnt reached in broodwar nor sc2 and many other games. Sure thats a good thing but thats not what matters in the end or overall, what matters is WHAT SKILL THE PLAYER IS USING. Arguing that the skillceiling is high is pure crap, argue instead WHAT SKILL IS BEING USED HERE.
So if someone is writing bullshit its nony imo.
Lets simplify it then.
Can players still get better at SC2?
Are the top players better then the middling players?
Are the top pro players better than the middling pro players?
What are your answers to this, and then give me your conclusion.
|
On January 05 2017 12:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:19 Foxxan wrote:
lol@nony
Myself dont see the pointless in that quote nony did.
Alot of people know, ALOT of people know that the skill ceiling isnt reached in broodwar nor sc2 and many other games. Sure thats a good thing but thats not what matters in the end or overall, what matters is WHAT SKILL THE PLAYER IS USING. Arguing that the skillceiling is high is pure crap, argue instead WHAT SKILL IS BEING USED HERE.
So if someone is writing bullshit its nony imo. Lets simplify it then. Can players still get better at SC2? Are the top players better then the middling players? Are the top pro players better than the middling pro players? What are your answers to this, and then give me your conclusion.
Shark lives undersea and shark want to walk earth says capuff and the shark is awake.
(When this person quotes me i will say something irrelevant cuz he never stays in line with what he quotes.)
|
Army control was affected, too. Controlling a maximum supply army in a classic real time strategy game was extraordinarily difficult due to things like poor unit AI, weak pathing, and limitations in the user interface around control groups. This created a comeback mechanic in which superior mechanical control of a smaller group of units by the losing player could defeat a winning player managing an uncontrollably large army. Modern real time strategy games change this. Armies are mechanically easier to control, meaning that a player with a larger army will usually defeat a player with a smaller army. Comeback mechanics instead center around strategic decisions like harassment or tech switches.
Yeah I really like this point.
|
LOL so many people here arguing about what game is harder, and Tyler is just trying to say it doesn't matter which one is harder.
What matters is that they are both hard at different things in the game.
Are people saying 'LoL is harder than 'Dota2'? Well I don't know, cuz i don't play any of those games, but does it matter? Both have their difficulties, and both are good games (judging from my observation with the TI and LCS).
Both BW and SC2 required the players to be the best, and only a small number of players are near the best, yet even they have room to grow. Were there BW players that achieved near perfect gameplay? Perhaps, but did they do it every game every time? Unlikely.
Are there SC2 players that show signs of brilliance but falter down the road? Of course.
We are comparing tangerines to clementines. Are they both small delicious citrus fruits? Sure. Does it matter if I think clemintines are sweeter than tangerines? No because both are rather sweet.
Sure we could measure the difference in difficulty in both games, but does it answer anything? We could give statistics on winrates over everyone careers, but that is meaningless.
Some of you that are claiming BW is harder are only arguing with yourselves. Those claiming both are hard are being trolled, at least I think they are. Absolutely no one, and I mean no one, is claiming SC2 is harder than BW.
So let this stupid thread die, so another one can replace it in a few months please.
|
I feel like war between fans of BW and sc2 is like old war Atari fans vs Commodore 64 fans. But the old war at least had classXD
But seriously. I know fron where it comes from. BW fans are mostly older guys who played this game when it was the greatest. They had no time or passion to transition into sc2 and that's why they try to diminish sc2 saying that it's worse than it's predecessor.That makes them "pros" and people with better taste in their own eye.
In the other hand we have mostly younger playerbase which was late to fully experience phenomenonn that BW was. That's why they diminish BW which makes an excuse in their own eyes for not trying to experience it at all.
What i mean is that both games are very good and different in many ways. And as such- they bring different experience. Overall the only thing that matters is the player's taste.
I played both-BW in it's prime and sc2. I enjoy both still and i wish both parties bury the hatchet :-)
|
On January 05 2017 14:47 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
LOL so many people here arguing about what game is harder, and Tyler is just trying to say it doesn't matter which one is harder.
What matters is that they are both hard at different things in the game.
Are people saying 'LoL is harder than 'Dota2'? Well I don't know, cuz i don't play any of those games, but does it matter? Both have their difficulties, and both are good games (judging from my observation with the TI and LCS).
Both BW and SC2 required the players to be the best, and only a small number of players are near the best, yet even they have room to grow. Were there BW players that achieved near perfect gameplay? Perhaps, but did they do it every game every time? Unlikely.
Are there SC2 players that show signs of brilliance but falter down the road? Of course.
We are comparing tangerines to clementines. Are they both small delicious citrus fruits? Sure. Does it matter if I think clemintines are sweeter than tangerines? No because both are rather sweet.
Sure we could measure the difference in difficulty in both games, but does it answer anything? We could give statistics on winrates over everyone careers, but that is meaningless.
Some of you that are claiming BW is harder are only arguing with yourselves. Those claiming both are hard are being trolled, at least I think they are. Absolutely no one, and I mean no one, is claiming SC2 is harder than BW.
So let this stupid thread die, so another one can replace it in a few months please.
Just because some idiots argue about nonsense for the last pages doesn't mean that the thread is bad. The blog had some interesting thoughts in it. And even the "how difficult" debate could yield interesting bits, in what areas are these games difficult? How does that relate to fun/game design.
Modern games tend to go the way of streamlining things so you need less and less actions to do what you want to do. That alone could be discussed for lots and lots of pages tbh.
|
Ok sorry about the tone in my previous post. I was getting a bit annoyed with the repetitive/circular argument, and lost my cool a bit with that post.
hiro and Viper bring up very good points, and others have too. Not entirely a stupid thread.
There is some merit with measuring difficulty, but it can sometimes be a hard metric to measure. To reiterate what Nony said (not verbatim) some things that are difficult for one person, may not be so for another. That is why comparing BW to SC2 is a bit futile.
However, there are some metrics that many could agree. I think, and many others might agree, macro in BW was harder than SC2. Blizzard streamlined the macro for SC2 so that the skill floor was easier to attain. I think that is why many say BW is harder than SC2. Not because of a theoretical skill ceiling, but a difference in difficult skill floor.
I really sucked 1v1 multiplayer in BW. Like blowing a dirty hobo's penis suck. I enjoyed playing BGH maps, but other than that I couldn't win a map if my son depended on it. But that doesn't mean BW is harder than SC2 overall. Just harder in that one aspect for me.
|
On January 05 2017 12:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:19 Foxxan wrote:
lol@nony
Myself dont see the pointless in that quote nony did.
Alot of people know, ALOT of people know that the skill ceiling isnt reached in broodwar nor sc2 and many other games. Sure thats a good thing but thats not what matters in the end or overall, what matters is WHAT SKILL THE PLAYER IS USING. Arguing that the skillceiling is high is pure crap, argue instead WHAT SKILL IS BEING USED HERE.
So if someone is writing bullshit its nony imo. Lets simplify it then. Can players still get better at SC2? Are the top players better then the middling players? Are the top pro players better than the middling pro players? What are your answers to this, and then give me your conclusion.
if none can get better forever than it mean that the skill cieling was reached, it's simply
you can't simply throw away the argument that the skill cieling can not be reached, the skill cieling is the possible(not impossible) highest skill someone can reach
|
In 10 years from now there will still be these BW vs SC threads.
Honestly there are so many different views on what is a good rts there is literally 0 chance for Blizzard to ever make an RTS where people will be happy.
I think Blizzard is doing a good job and people are just up in the arms for the sake of it. No matter what they change these threads keep popping up.
|
On January 05 2017 17:12 Garmer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 12:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 09:19 Foxxan wrote:
lol@nony
Myself dont see the pointless in that quote nony did.
Alot of people know, ALOT of people know that the skill ceiling isnt reached in broodwar nor sc2 and many other games. Sure thats a good thing but thats not what matters in the end or overall, what matters is WHAT SKILL THE PLAYER IS USING. Arguing that the skillceiling is high is pure crap, argue instead WHAT SKILL IS BEING USED HERE.
So if someone is writing bullshit its nony imo. Lets simplify it then. Can players still get better at SC2? Are the top players better then the middling players? Are the top pro players better than the middling pro players? What are your answers to this, and then give me your conclusion. if none can get better forever than it mean that the skill cieling was reached, it's simply you can't simply throw away the argument that the skill cieling can not be reached, the skill cieling is the possible(not impossible) highest skill someone can reach
You did not answer any of the questions asked in the post you quoted.
|
8751 Posts
On January 05 2017 09:48 Euphorbus wrote:
All I was saying is that I concede the point that current top SC2 players make meaningful mistakes. But I don't think that fact is a refutation of the core issue. I even said that 10 years ago while you didn't seem so sure.
I can just ask one last time before I go out of town for a while:
On January 05 2017 03:38 Euphorbus wrote:
I never said that. In fact, 10 years ago, I would argue against the concept of a skill ceiling. When everyone was talking about a skill ceiling, I objected since I realized they wouldn't probably not reach it, but they would still feel the effect.
I don't think you will ever hit a skill ceiling in the average competitive video games. But that doesn't mean they have the same spectrum of skill.
Since you've drawn these conclusions, you've measured the effect you're talking about and you've measured the spectrums of skill. Can you say specifically (like the matchup and the strategy) where pros were working on improving their win rate and felt this effect in LotV and where pros in BW were able to make use of their different spectrum of skill in a similar situation? Get as specific as you can describing the process pros went through and link the matches.
The existence of such a thing isn't even something I'd argue against, even if I disagree with it. I just want to see it. You make a really big statement that is absolutely meaningless to me and I'd just like to see the analysis behind it that inspires you to make the statement so I can associate some actual SC activity with it. I'm going out of town for four days so take your time.
I hardly poke my head into these discussions anymore these days but I just can't stand discussions full of people making observations and proclaiming their conclusions without showing the specific games that inspire it. The author of the article honestly embarrassed himself in the eyes of anyone who knows what an Oracle is and I think if he'd just put the effort into linking the games supporting his description, he would have corrected himself. Instead he just proclaimed things and was totally wrong. Show, don't tell.
|
If you want more substance, more definitions, more quantitative and verifiable claims, I am on your side.
If you think this is all fundamentally vague and cloudy, you go with Nony and Laurens.
I don't necessarily think it's fundamentally vague and cloudy, I just think it's entirely subjective.
Your explanation of averaging weights does not make it objective. Ask 100 people to assign weights to Micro/Macro difficulty and then you can compute some averages, sure. Then you can use some formula to get a 'difficulty' value out of it.*
Now ask 100 other people the same thing and you will get different average weights, hence a different value. That means difficulty is subjective.
And from there, I believe it is pointless to argue about which one is "more difficult", since difficulty is a subjective value. The answer to this question will vary from person to person, and you can never make the general claim "X is more difficult than Y period"
* (How one would come to an objective formula to combine micro difficulty and macro difficulty in one difficulty value is another question altogether - which I also think is impossible to solve but that's besides the point)
edit: I should also note, like Nony above, that your posts have shown a lack of quantitative claims and definitions 
|
To Nony:
I explicitly said I have not measured it. Have you?
You used to agree with me. And now you don't. So what measurement did you do to change your mind?
So I am in one state of 'delusion' for which I have no hard empirical evidence.
You went from one state of 'delusion' to the other, also with no hard empirical evidence.
If there is something that is odd then it is you changing your mind when your old predictions have come true.
Yes, in the end SC2 failed for other reasons (war on kespa, unit response to micro, too hard to learn, bad single player, bad bnet). It failed before it could fail on exactly that argument you made 10 years ago.
All I am saying is that you were right.
Also, if I bade my argument on a single game, that argument would be bad. So I don't know why you ask for that.
When SC2 beta came out and I found it no fun, I quit, finished my degree and did a PhD. I don't know anything about SC2 strategy. I never argued SC2 strategy. All I see is my and your old predictions for SC2, and how they came true. Best examples are the proteams disbanding, Stork, Jaedong, Flash and Bisu going back to Starcraft. Yes, who appears in the final 16 of tournaments and the winrates more resembling WC3 than Starcraft did play a role, but that alone is too vague and might be the result of variance or the game just being new.
At least our old views led to predictions that came true. In science, a theory that fits the data is a good theory. Yes, there has been a lot more going on, but we don't have much to go off. Either you have no opinion, which was never your position, or you do the best you can do with an opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
