EPTSprinting is not less strategic than chess just because you can lean on mechanics more.
Trying to argue which game is harder is idiotic.
StarCraft II and Brood War Belong to Different Genres - Pa…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Sprinting is not less strategic than chess just because you can lean on mechanics more. Trying to argue which game is harder is idiotic. | ||
|
todespolka
221 Posts
Sc2 has just as many tricks, is as difficult as bw today (maybe even more). This was not the case in wol! Lotv changed a lot for the better. People complained about limited selection, pathing, ai, difficulty of spell casting in bw and blizzard changed it. Sc2 has an easier macro than bw. But this is not a bad thing. It lowers the entry level, makes the game intuitive and comfortable. In bw you used a big part of your actions for macro. In sc2 it is the other way around. But thanks to macro mechanics, macro is always part of the game. Sc2 comes very close to bw today. If blizzard doesnt stop to refine the game, it will surpass bw in quality (i played both games for many years and am a fan of both games). Its really sad, that sc2 is only the most popular rts and not one of the big e-sports. This game has more layers of depth than anything else. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
On January 05 2017 23:37 Laurens wrote: I don't necessarily think it's fundamentally vague and cloudy, I just think it's entirely subjective. But it is only subjective when you want it to be. We already agreed it cannot be fundamentally 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. Oh, the method is definitely objective. The issue is what the conclusions mean. I get a strong feeling you don't really understand or feel how to manipulate big data, so maybe this is pointless, but let me say this. I never said you ask people to rate difficulties. You came up with people ranting people on looks and personalities, making claims about that. I disagreed with the claims in your analogy (and also with the analogy itself). If you ask 100 people, and get one result. Then ask 100 people, and you get a completely different result, something is wrong. Your sampling size is either too small, or the two populations you are sampling are different. Your argument here is a general arguments against statistics in general. I don't see how it is even relevant in this discussion. But to me all it does is suggest that you do not understand statistics. If you have a population and you think asking the first 100 randomly selected people will give you a different answer than asking the second 100 randomly selected people, something is very odd here. In either case, if this can work or not says nothing about if something is subjective or objective. You can ask 100 Clinton voters and 100 Trump voters who won the popular vote. They will give widely different answers. But that doesn't mean the notion of who won the popular vote 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" No no no. First of all, do never talk about persons. Talk about populations. If you want to ask how difficult a game is, all you are getting is perceived difficulty, not difficulty. I am not interested in perceived difficulty myself. But say you are. Say you put some poll on TL and people vote on the difficulty of SC2, scaling from 1 to 10. You get data. That's it. That's the objective result of what people on TL.net, interested enough to vote in a poll on SC2 difficulty say about their perceived difficulty of SC2. It is an objective answer. Not subjective. And yes, perceived difficulty is a subjective thing, which is why I would not be interested in it. People with different gaming backgrounds will experience the same SC2 difficulty, yet report their experience some other difficulty. If you also ask people about their age, or their gaming background, and split up the data, the distributions may be very different because obviously people are not going to agree about how difficult a game is. This is why you would measure how difficult a game is based on outcomes of games only. What happens inside the game or what happens inside a person's head, you ignore for 100%. That you get different answers for a voluntary poll on Fomos, or 'forcing' everyone that enters Blizzcon to vote, that is true and besides the point. If you are going to do polling, which I suggest you should not even try as it would be rather pointless, you need to be very aware what you sampled and how your sample relates to the population you want to make conclusions about. * (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) I guess this asks about deconvolution. I can say something about that. But for that I will revert for that to your original example about judging females on looks and personality, so whatever I say cannot be misrepresented. What is your background in math and statistics? So I know where to start. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4542 Posts
You can ask 100 Clinton voters and 100 Trump voters who won the popular vote. They will give widely different answers. But that doesn't mean the notion of who won the popular vote is subjective. They won't... Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won the electoral college, this is objective. Now ask 100 people who would make the better president: Trump or Clinton? This is subjective. If you want to ask how difficult a game is, all you are getting is perceived difficulty, not difficulty. I am not interested in perceived difficulty myself. But say you are. My entire argument is that perceived difficulty is the best thing you can compute. There is no other difficulty that can be computed. What is your background in math and statistics? So I know where to start. I fail to see how my background is relevant to the discussion at hand. I'm pretty sure you're about to argue something that I did not argue against, and is entirely pointless to the objective vs subjective discussion, but go ahead. 4 years computer science at University of Oxford, first class honours, now in the final year of my PhD in computer science. | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
That being said, the article was pretty good for someone who never really played BW although he was definitely wrong on the whole BW had less strategic importance thing, but a lot of responders covered that already. One thing I feel I should address is the "lack of bonjwas" in sc2. I have to agree with Korea on this one. If there's a lack of people who are able to dominate the scene, it actually does indicate that there is a low bar. I do feel that LotV attempted to address this and is by no means an easy game, but it is still a lower bar because they focused on the wrong things if they wanted to recapture BW's difficulty. They added silly mechanics through the 3 expansions and didn't focus on what actually made BW great. Do you really think there would be such fanfare for sports if there weren't dominant teams and players that managed to basically claim the whole scene for several years? All signs point to "no". Teams and players able to master a game so well that it seems they're unbeatable for a good period of time makes viewership and support spike for the duration of their reign. People start coming to the sport simply because of the star if they become big enough. If you don't have that, you don't have a real game. I know people think they do now, but people like me know that 10-20 years later, we will be proven right as always. If you truly want to save the longevity of a scene, you have to demand skill and higher bars over all. Making things easy sounds good on paper but it only leads to a revolving door scenario. All these things have lead to a total paradigm shift over the years towards less skill, more accessible to everyone but overall worse things in every regard that actually matters. If you want to charge $200 for a game that used to be $80-100 and cheat people by horrible policies they are too weak-minded to actually stand up for themselves or do anything about, this future is a paradise. To old schoolers with a fighter-type mentality and a lust for competitive evolution, everything post-2010 has pretty much been total hell. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
On January 06 2017 01:15 Laurens wrote: They won't... Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won the electoral college, this is objective. Really? If you get stuck here, I don't see how this can proceed. We are polling what people think. Why? Because that is what you started to talk about. Not really related, but in some polls 52% of republicans actually think Trump won the popular vote. I have to assume your mistake is deliberate. But I do not know where to proceed from there. If you want to ask how difficult a game is, all you are getting is perceived difficulty, not difficulty. I am not interested in perceived difficulty myself. But say you are. My entire argument is that perceived difficulty is the best thing you can compute. There is no other difficulty that can be computed. I don't see where you argued that. And with that statement, I wonder if you actually mean to say 'compute' or if you mean something else. Anyway, this debate is going no where. I am talking about doing measurements on games. You keep wanting to want to talk about the opinions of people playing games. Making my first statement on this issue, my position would be that perceived difficulty will be the last thing you can compute. Can't be bothered to argue for it. Seemed like a truism. Are you really being honest? You ask me to explain to you a rather complex way to deconvolute a dataset, and you wonder how your knowledge is relevant? I'm pretty sure you're about to argue something that I did not argue against, I guess you know your own inclinations and debating pitfalls really well, then. and is entirely pointless to the objective vs subjective discussion, but go ahead. 4 years computer science at University of Oxford, first class honours, now in the final year of my PhD in computer science. Ok, then you do know something. That makes it even more puzzling to me how you don't know what deconvolution is and why you respond in such a stupid way. Out of 100 people reading this, I will be the only person believing this. So here we go. In your example, you have males report on female attractiveness. Say they magically get to spend 24 hours of quality time with all females that are rated, so they can score both attractiveness of looks and personality. All males score all females on their overall attractiveness. Now we have the following dataset. We have a matrix of n by m, where n is the number of girls and m is the number of boys. We know from the literature that most biological traits fit a normal distribution. And we know from the literature that males in fact rate female attractiveness fairly, meaning they actually rate them on a normal curve. (females don't, by the way, so this is only easier because males do not generate a skewed distribution). To differentiate, we need to remove all the girls where males give similar answers, as we cannot deconvolute two normal curves that have the same μ and σ) We remove all girls for the dataset where their own variance is really small. The assumption is that girls that are 'polarizing' are either good looking or boring, or not so good looking but interesting. So you can use a Monte Carlo to find some selection of females where males disagree most. Now we 'know' (it was your a priori assumption) that if we take a overall attractiveness dataset, that it is composed of two datasets superimposed on each other. One normal distribution rating the looks, with a certain weighing factor, and one distribution that may be but doesn't have to be a normal distribution, also with a weighing factor. There is a finite number of ways to take a normal distribution, add to it something that is likely either a skewed normal distribution (but most likely also a fair normal distribution), and to get the resulting data. You can solve for which functions these are, and how much you need of each to get the final dataset. Once you know that, you know which weigh the average boy gives to either looks or personality. How exactly to do that you should already know, or you can ask your grad students, as they will know it even better than me. But basically it comes down to either finding a function that fits the data in the matrix, and using fourier transform methods, or solving for aA + bB = C, where A, B and C are matrices, and a and b are scalers, with certain constraints put on the properties of a, b, A and B, and C being our measured dataset. You can use Expectation–maximization algorithm in matlab. Now we can go back to individual males. Rather than taking all the females and their average score, we can take a male and the score of all females, ordered from high to low. We can use the same function shapes and calculate which value is needed for both of them to most closely match the distribution they have. So we get a estimated value for each individual male. The data doesn't answer which shape&weight is attractiveness and which is looks. And all this assumes the way males rank females is only composed of two things (which it isn't, but it was your example. Ok, this is all completely pointless and irrelevant to the discussion, but he asked for it. Don't blame me for him making claims about what can be known if males rate females. Same techniques can in principle be applied to games, but doing this in reality with games will turn in a completely confusing clusterfuck, which in his idealized example, it will work. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4542 Posts
I don't see where you argued that. In one of my earlier posts I said: "there is no such thing as objective game difficulty." I am talking about doing measurements on games. You keep wanting to want to talk about the opinions of people playing games. As far as I can see, all the measurements you suggest, including deconvolution, incorporate the opinions of people... Feel free to provide a measurement of game difficulty that does not include people's opinions. I'm interested to hear it. Out of 100 people reading this, I will be the only person believing this. Rofl. Feel free to dig deep enough into the archives of tl.net forums. You'll find activity from me in UKUTL threads (uk university team league), oxford sc2 society, varsity games between oxford and cambridge, etc. I can PM you pictures of my certificate, bod card, and alumni card tomorrow if you like  Ok, this is all completely pointless and irrelevant to the discussion, but he asked for it. 1) I'm glad you realise, but then why did you post it? I even warned you it would be pointless... 2) Did I really? What I asked for was an objective formula, and the decision to use the male/female example was all yours. Seems like we mostly disagree on what is subjective and what is objective. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree. Tip for future discussions: use less ad hominems, it doesn't help your claims. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
I stand by my claim. Someone who doesn't know the difference between an opinion or fact, objective or subjective, claim and argument, such a person is not what one would expect based on the reputation of Oxford. But I believe you. People rarely lie on the internet. Especially not about their education. Why did I post all that shit? Because you fucking asked for it. What? Why are you so surprised when people give you more respect than you yourself apparently think you deserve? I don't know what you think 'objective' means, but such a method will give the same result regardless of who uses it. That's usually called 'an objective method'. My ad hominems don't help my claims? Didn't they learn you in Oxford that they also don't hurt my claims? My claims are good or bad, factual or non-factual, independent of whatever ad hominem I may engage in as well. When I am in a debate and my opponent is dishonest or deliberately trying to sabotage or be tricky, yes I will call them out. Call it ad hominem if you like. But I will do so nonetheless. As you gave me advice, let me give you some as well. Don't act like an idiot on purpose. Don't feign ignorance to sabotage debates and to deliberately cause confusion. Don't ridicule the other for their patience to explain things to you. Especially not when you just requested it. Don't bring up Oxford or PhD when you feign ignorance about undergrad and even high school concepts. I can't get past the point you do not understand what sampling in polling means. I can't get over the fact that you cannot distinguish between what a fact is and what people think is factual. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 06 2017 03:04 Bill Murray wrote: brood war was masterfully layered (albeit on accident) and had distinct strategy and timings i never saw from SC2 meh, will never be as strategically respected as chess and gets even less views than LoL why even bother watching it at all, dead game obviously.  | ||
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
On January 06 2017 00:19 Euphorbus wrote: Say you put some poll on TL and people vote on the difficulty of SC2, scaling from 1 to 10. You get data. That's it. That's the objective result of what people on TL.net, interested enough to vote in a poll on SC2 difficulty say about their perceived difficulty of SC2. It is an objective answer. Not subjective. And yes, perceived difficulty is a subjective thing, which is why I would not be interested in it. People with different gaming backgrounds will experience the same SC2 difficulty, yet report their experience some other difficulty. If you also ask people about their age, or their gaming background, and split up the data, the distributions may be very different because obviously people are not going to agree about how difficult a game is. This is why you would measure how difficult a game is based on outcomes of games only. What happens inside the game or what happens inside a person's head, you ignore for 100%. I don't know how you can come to a conclusion about the difficulty of a 1v1 game purely by the outcome. When were talking about difficulty were talking about how hard it is to perform the desired task optimally. I think most high level players of any game will agree with the statement that to be able to recognize the actions required to achieve something, you have to be almost be able to do it yourself. For instance when we talk about how hard macro is in BW, I doubt I can give a fair assessment compared to that of NonY. Since by this premise you would require somebody to be perfect at something to gain a valid opinion on how difficult it is, going by the route of peoples opinions should in theory be a non-viable option. A good example of this would be the way how the SC community mocked LoL for being a super casual game and being way more easy than SC2. But I'm not convinced that one is harder (when accounting for the different skill sets required of course). This is why in my opinion we have to look in-depth into a game and try to quantify every decision somebody has to make, and how hard the actions are to perform when a decision is made. How you would analyses this would probably take quite a few pages. But it IMO it would be like a summing all the realistic game states, the choices within those states, and effort required to perform each possible action. A good example of this in would be the way how SC:BW is compared to SC2 with regards to MBS. EDIT: On January 05 2017 23:59 Euphorbus wrote: 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. You don't hold everything on a single game, but providing example games are incredibly valuable because they expose details that are normally lost withing text. | ||
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
On January 06 2017 02:32 sCCrooked wrote: One thing I feel I should address is the "lack of bonjwas" in sc2. I have to agree with Korea on this one. If there's a lack of people who are able to dominate the scene, it actually does indicate that there is a low bar. I do feel that LotV attempted to address this and is by no means an easy game, but it is still a lower bar because they focused on the wrong things if they wanted to recapture BW's difficulty. They added silly mechanics through the 3 expansions and didn't focus on what actually made BW great. Do you really think there would be such fanfare for sports if there weren't dominant teams and players that managed to basically claim the whole scene for several years? All signs point to "no". Teams and players able to master a game so well that it seems they're unbeatable for a good period of time makes viewership and support spike for the duration of their reign. People start coming to the sport simply because of the star if they become big enough. If you don't have that, you don't have a real game. I know people think they do now, but people like me know that 10-20 years later, we will be proven right as always. A lack of domination does not equate to a low bar. You can have 30 world class players, but that doesn't mean getting there was easy or that the bar was low. Just that you have 30 people at an equal level. I think it is much more likely that a lack of domination means a lack of external forces that are creating these outliers, like the amount of players that are trying to become the best. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 06 2017 08:43 sabas123 wrote: I don't know how you can come to a conclusion about the difficulty of a 1v1 game purely by the outcome. When were talking about difficulty were talking about how hard it is to perform the desired task optimally. I think most high level players of any game will agree with the statement that to be able to recognize the actions required to achieve something, you have to be almost be able to do it yourself. For instance when we talk about how hard macro is in BW, I doubt I can give a fair assessment compared to that of NonY. Since by this premise you would require somebody to be perfect at something to gain a valid opinion on how difficult it is, going by the route of peoples opinions should in theory be a non-viable option. A good example of this would be the way how the SC community mocked LoL for being a super casual game and being way more easy than SC2. But I'm not convinced that one is harder (when accounting for the different skill sets required of course). This is why in my opinion we have to look in-depth into a game and try to quantify every decision somebody has to make, and how hard the actions are to perform when a decision is made. How you would analyses this would probably take quite a few pages. But it IMO it would be like a summing all the realistic game states, the choices within those states, and effort required to perform each possible action. A good example of this in would be the way how SC:BW is compared to SC2 with regards to MBS. If we base the skill of the game based on difficulty then lets take a game that is considered competitive and is respected as strategy game: chess Is the mechanic of the game in question at least as difficult as chess? | ||
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
On January 06 2017 08:49 Thieving Magpie wrote: If we base the skill of the game based on difficulty then lets take a game that is considered competitive and is respected as strategy game: chess Is the mechanic of the game in question at least as difficult as chess? You mean if the mechanical execution of chess is hard? No of course not. That is why I also talked about the amount of choices somebody has to make and the amount of possible states that can exist within the game. Within that regard chess is incredibly hard, and that is reason why it is such a respected strategy game, same goes for go. Anyway, I'm going to sleep now, I will respond again once I wake up. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 06 2017 09:01 sabas123 wrote: You mean if the mechanical execution of chess is hard? No of course not. That is why I also talked about the amount of choices somebody has to make and the amount of possible states that can exist within the game. Within that regard chess is incredibly hard, and that is reason why it is such a respected strategy game, same goes for go. Agreed. Because different games test different things. Grade one game on the realities of another game and all you'll have is chaos. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
On January 06 2017 08:43 sabas123 wrote: I don't know how you can come to a conclusion about the difficulty of a 1v1 game purely by the outcome. It's the same argument as all arguments with Elo-derived ranking systems using what happens inside a game rather than merely the outcome. I am not saying you definitely shouldn't use game statistics besides the outcome. I am not sure. More data can contain more information, but more data also means it is very tricky to interpret. If you want to read more about this, I am sure there are placed, websites, books or scientific literature, that debate introducing more variables into an Elo-derived skill ranking like Glicko, Trueskill, etc. But there is a reason why basically no skill rating system uses in game statistics to reinterpret who won and who lost. When were talking about difficulty were talking about how hard it is to perform the desired task optimally. I think most high level players of any game will agree with the statement that to be able to recognize the actions required to achieve something, you have to be almost be able to do it yourself. For instance when we talk about how hard macro is in BW, I doubt I can give a fair assessment compared to that of NonY. If a game is infinitely hard so everyone is equally terrible at it, any result will be a 50/50 coin flip, regardless of talent and practice. I hope you realize a game just being hard isn't an end in itself. I don't know if you were here debating it 10 years ago. I refer you to the Nony quote from 2008 or so, about macro skill in Starcraft and game longevity. As for top players being more able to say how hard something is, I would object here as well. It will be opposite. Skilled and talented players do things that are very hard for others automatically. I don't even know what it means for something to be hard. I guess the only way to experience that something is hard is to do it, practice, but see no improvement. So just not being able to do something no matter what. Just a silly example. Recognizing a face is a very hard task. But for normal people, it is very easy. We do not even have to think about it. A blind person cannot do it no matter what. Certain people will have great difficulty with this, however. And to program computer code to do it turns out to be quite complex. Can you say something about how difficult this is? As for measuring how hard some task inside a game, or any task, is in some quantitative manner, I don't know how one would do such a thing. All I can think of is comparing an average person, sitting at the base of the pyramid of skill, with someone at the top. All I can think of is counting how many tiers there are between the base and the top of the pyramid. It may be binary. You either know how to play the game, or you don't know. If two people who know how to play the game, play the game, the game will be a draw (or first move player wins). If two people who do not know how to play the game, the outcome will be 50/50. If a person that does and a person that does not know how to play the game, the player that knows wins 100% of the time. On the opposite side you have a game where no player is equal in skill to anyone else. So every time two people play(and assuming you can magically fix their skill level in time), one person is therefore more skilled than the other. And the more skilled person will always beat the less skilled player, even if they play an infinite amount of games. My definition of 'hard' is therefore a game where skilled players win out more against less skilled players. Where both variance and luck play only a small role. Where a small increase in skill has a very large effect on the outcome of a game. Since by this premise you would require somebody to be perfect at something to gain a valid opinion on how difficult it is, going by the route of peoples opinions should in theory be a non-viable option. A good example of this would be the way how the SC community mocked LoL for being a super casual game and being way more easy than SC2. But I'm not convinced that one is harder (when accounting for the different skill sets required of course). LoL works mainly because it is a team game. You test the teamwork ability of the players. You cannot really compare that with the tasks tested by a 1vs1 game. Introducing teamwork kind of solves the whole problem of what skills you test. I didn't play much moba and it seems many that do queue op solo a lot of the time. But that is kind of the point of the game, it seems. Not clicking a last hit on a creep vs the AI (which I think LoL doesn't even have). We used to mock other games, true. But we didn't do that because LoL is easier than SC2. Both games weren't even announced back then. If you are mocking LoL today because SC2 is so hard, you aren't really being anywhere close as cool as we Starcraft people used to be. This is why in my opinion we have to look in-depth into a game and try to quantify every decision somebody has to make, and how hard the actions are to perform when a decision is made. How you would analyses this would probably take quite a few pages. But it IMO it would be like a summing all the realistic game states, the choices within those states, and effort required to perform each possible action. A good example of this in would be the way how SC:BW is compared to SC2 with regards to MBS. Game states? If you are going to compare game states in RTS vs game states in Moba, you really think it would lead anywhere? There are so many, this doesn't even work for chess. I can kind of see how you can estimate how many decisions a player has to make. You can maybe approximate it. And that would be fixed in time for certain game phases, not be an exponentially growing three of states. As for those eager to discuss chess, do you know what chess people mean when they refer to 'mechanical' and 'strategical' skill/ability? | ||
|
mappostorm
3 Posts
Few years later I had the itch to play RTS again and was considering going back to wc3 but the sc2 trailer came out and I waited for that. As sc2 release date came closer sometime early 2009 I thought I'd play some bw to prepare for sc2. I played for about 4 months and got completely destroyed. Never got past D- and a C- player was impossible to beat for me. My biggest achievement during that time was beating a C- player that offraced lol. So uuhhh yeah I sucked at bw and was just barely scratching the surface of this game. I got into the sc2 beta few months before the actual game came out and without much effort I was in the highest division...platinum I think. When the game came out I was always in the highest division...diamond, master(not gm though!). You could argue that doesn't mean much during this era of sc2 because there were players flocking in from all sorts of games and figuring out how to play it it's obviously much harder to get to masters in sc2's current state where the active players are all veterans. I played this game for about 5 months and was constantly improving until just one day I thought this game is not really that interesting to me. At the time I did not really question it and just quit but thinking about it now the reason is most likely the macro mechanics. Thinking about both games in a sandbox mode. In sc2 without an opponent I could max out quite fast probably not making too many mistakes. In bw I never was anywhere close to good at macro. There were so many replays I watched of myself where the opponent didn't do any type of harassment to me just let me do my own thing and attacked me with 200/200 and full control of the map and I would have something like 70-100 supply lol. Anyways I had a lot of fun jumping around with hotkeys and finding something that needs to be done. Sc2 there's a lot of cycling between buildings and units and waiting to do something but macro does ramp up with harassment/engages. I obviously performed better in sc2 than bw(I sucked at the start of bw and when the game matured) the reason is obviously the interface. For me the magic of bw is this interface with limitations and how a player can compensate for these shortcomings and with player skill can make it seem to run smoothly when in reality it's a sinking ship but being kept afloat somehow. In terms of a developers point of view many of these limitations are seen as problems that need to be solved. They were all solved for sc2(automine, mbs, unit pathing, worker rally point, clumping? etc) and what happened? It created a different game where the focus is not that much on macro and units move faster and do such high DPS that micro only shines in small skirmishes or multitasking. What I would've wanted to happen was that sc2 started as a full bw port with prettier gfx similar to how dota transitioned to dota 2. Then work from there. This way there wouldn't have been the initial bw vs sc2 split right from the start. It's still scary though because players wouldn't want anything to change balance wise/interface wise/unit wise. Anyways sc2 failed to bring out what I thought was awesome in bw. Easier macro and underwhelming looking micro(unfortunate design choice of units...bw was quite lucky with how all the units interacted with each other). I find it crazy how there was 10 years of sc1 progamer footage and it doesn't seem blizzard built from there. Like here's brood war an amazing game how do we make it more amazing? Obviously sc2 is still hard(but is it fun?) and has more emphasis on other skills like decision making/builds/multitasking/positioning but bw has all these things too while the game has the learning curve of an instrument to control to your desire. Every time I watch a pro bw players first person view it looks to me like an artist creating something amazing every single time. this seems like a blog post lol oops :D | ||
|
duke91
Germany1458 Posts
On January 06 2017 11:49 mappostorm wrote: Anyways sc2 failed to bring out what I thought was awesome in bw. Easier macro and underwhelming looking micro(unfortunate design choice of units...bw was quite lucky with how all the units interacted with each other). I find it crazy how there was 10 years of sc1 progamer footage and it doesn't seem blizzard built from there. Like here's brood war an amazing game how do we make it more amazing? Blizzard doesn't care about making amazing games. It cares about making money. Imagine how badly received a copy of BW would be through reviews, which determines sales. People always want something new even though old stuff are still doing well. Drawing from the legacy of BW, Blizzard cashed out big with SC2. That's what they cared about. It showed when they actively sued KESPA and hindered many OSL's from taking place in 2011-2012. | ||
|
usopsama
6502 Posts
| ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On January 06 2017 00:12 todespolka wrote: Only we call sc2 another genre. For most people its just a modern version of bw. This is also my opinion. Sc2 has just as many tricks, is as difficult as bw today (maybe even more). This was not the case in wol! Lotv changed a lot for the better. People complained about limited selection, pathing, ai, difficulty of spell casting in bw and blizzard changed it. Sc2 has an easier macro than bw. But this is not a bad thing. It lowers the entry level, makes the game intuitive and comfortable. In bw you used a big part of your actions for macro. In sc2 it is the other way around. But thanks to macro mechanics, macro is always part of the game. Sc2 comes very close to bw today. If blizzard doesnt stop to refine the game, it will surpass bw in quality (i played both games for many years and am a fan of both games). Its really sad, that sc2 is only the most popular rts and not one of the big e-sports. This game has more layers of depth than anything else. There is absolutely zero substance to your post and all opinion. Please tell me who complained when they were developing sc2? They did it on their own because they wanted to be able to let their mothers play in Dustin B's words. You want substance? There are more upsets and swings in SC2 then there ever was in BW. You know many times a foreigner would have to play a Korean player to take a game off them? There is much less chance for someone who is just not on the same level to take a game off them. SC2 isn't even close to what BW is. You can hoot all you want. It isn't even close and lol at your thought of SC2 surpassing BW in quality when all the changes have made players and viewers go away. Only reason people were saying they enjoyed the game or thought it was better is because they were playing it. Now that a lot of them have quit and moved on they're admitting the fact that they found BW much more enjoyable. Don't take my word for it. Ask them. What you call constant balance changes isn't more depth. It's called poor game design and units that just don't mesh that they constantly have to keep patching it when BW hasn't been patched in fucking ages. There's your substance. | ||
| ||
