EPTOn May 23 2018 01:05 deacon.frost wrote:
Yes,. this helps the population...
Yes,. this helps the population...
why should we sit here and listen to this kid who doesn't understand the game is mechanically difficult? I'm doing him a favor
StarCraft II Balance Update – May 15, 2018 - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
franzji
United States583 Posts
why should we sit here and listen to this kid who doesn't understand the game is mechanically difficult? I'm doing him a favor | ||
|
Haukinger
Germany131 Posts
On May 23 2018 00:15 aish wrote: chess [...] The thing is the skill caps on those games are nothing compared to mechanically difficult games. Now that's an exceptionally stupid thing to say. | ||
|
GoSuNamhciR
125 Posts
| ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
On May 23 2018 03:18 GoSuNamhciR wrote: Strategy does matter, my mechanics are pretty fucking trash and always have been yet I get GM everytime I come back and play because people suck at playing strategically and try to play like a robot when I play very far outside the box. The funny paradox is that I would expect a GM player to be good enough to recognize their own flaws. Whereas I wouldn't expect a diamond player to be good enough to recognize their own flaws. Since you're GM I'm willing to bet you can pull off "probes and pylons" now lets try to find a single diamond player who can do "probes and pylons" properly. | ||
|
Immaterial
Canada510 Posts
The reason for its longevity in my opinion are related in part to how hard it is, because it makes it more exciting when you see a player who’s reaver micro is beyond anything you could ever execute. Furthermore, the difficulty of the game serves as a bit of a come back mechanic, as your army grows and you have more bases to manage it is way easier to make mistakes in control or defense. Furthermore, battles tend to last longer and games are substantially back and forth with apparent “lead changes” occurring often throughout many matches. In SC2 as both a player and spectator my opinion it has always seemed like in many games it comes down to a single decisive battle or action resulting in an insurmountable deficit for one player. It is probably less like this now than in the past but it is still a problem. Don’t mistake my intentions — I’m not trying to make this another in a long line of BW vs SC2 posts. I’m just using the BW example to illustrate some of the problems I see in SC2 from a spectator standpoint. It is perhaps true that making the game easier would expand the player base for a while but it does not lead to a better spectator experience. Starcraft is just inherently not a game like LoL or OW that anyone can play at an okayish feeling level. These games are supposed to be hard, and that is what makes the game so beautiful. SC2 is already a very strategic game. It is true that you can always have better mechanics and win on the back of that, but that is precisely as it should be. With matchmaking, you play against players of similar skill in which case strategy **absolutely does matter**. The game is an RTS, not turn based; it is Starcraft, not tooth & tail. It is the way it is for a reason, and in my eyes too many concessions have already been made in the name of being casual friendly. At this point in SC2’s lifecycle, making the mechanics more forgiving and the game more strategic is absolutely not the correct route to go. I wasn’t around in the glory days of BW, I was just a casual and I was pretty young. SC2 was the first RTS I was ever “good” at, but over time I lost interest and learned Brood War instead because I just find the insane skill ceiling and back-and-forth nature of the games to be more appealing. To be fair, BW is an accidentally perfect game in my eyes and that is an unreasonable standard to expect from any game. My opinion is that the biggest problems in SC2 probably are: “terrible terrible damage” executed in a way that makes battles far too short, they are seemingly over before they even start; Protoss design in general is problematic (I say that as a primarily P player though I was high masters as random as well); macro mechanics skew the game and race balance and only have to exist because of the addition of MBS & automine (I know, this complaint is *so* 5 years ago); the elimination of the early game imo was a mistake; and others I can’t recall of the top of my head. I still try to watch SC2 often but I just can’t get excited about most of the matches I see. I’m not just trying to shit on LoTV — I *want* to love it, I want to feel the passion I used to feel for the game. But I personally can’t. I hope this post isn’t going to just pull discussion further into the weeds so to speak, but I felt compelled to say it. I apologize if this is an unhealthy contribution to the discussion, and it is a bit stream of consciousness. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
But if that is such a big deal, then I guarantee there are people out there who understand the game better such that if you said "I can't do X, Y, or Z because they're too mechanically difficult" then they'd have other answers to improve your win rate. If you can't find these answers yourself, then don't go on forums saying the game doesn't reward strategy enough. You've just reached your limit. | ||
|
Immaterial
Canada510 Posts
On May 27 2018 03:08 NonY wrote: It's a bit ridiculous how helpless some people act about the mechanical difficulty of SC2. If a 10 year old child begins practicing piano for 1 hour a day, after a year she will consistently be doing more difficult maneuvers with her fingers than what a lot of SC2 tasks require. Maybe you've come to resent mechanics because you haven't improved them in so long. It's not such a big deal to put aside a little bit of time figuring out how to do these tasks and then deliberately practicing them for a while in the unit trainer so that you can do them in a real game. But if that is such a big deal, then I guarantee there are people out there who understand the game better such that if you said "I can't do X, Y, or Z because they're too mechanically difficult" then they'd have other answers to improve your win rate. If you can't find these answers yourself, then don't go on forums saying the game doesn't reward strategy enough. You've just reached your limit. Pretty much this. In my eyes, it's almost as if there are two types of Starcraft players. The first type relishes the challenge of the game and it's mechanics, finding the unlimited skill ceiling to be part of the appeal & beauty Starcraft. The fact that you can always improve, you can always work on your mechanics, motivates them to keep playing in pursuit of becoming a better player. The other kind seemingly finds this same aspect of the game to be an insult. "if only the mechanics were easier," they wrongly assume, "then I could actually show off my brilliant strategic mind!" Rather than work on improving by analyzing replays, voraciously consuming new information about the game, they log onto the forums and demand that the game change. Better that the game change to accommodate their lack of skill than they work to actually improve themselves. Kinda like Nony said, being a skilled musician is hard. Should we fucking nerf the piano? Aahhhh imba world, the mechanics are too hard. I can compose amazing symphonies in my head, I'd be a virtuoso if not for these stupid mechanics. Starcraft is beautiful in large part because it is hard. It is an RTS, but don't assume that "strategy" is more important than "real time" -- if you want strategy unfiltered by mechanical skill and amazing physical feats (more or less) then play a different game. I don't mean to be combative or hostile, but it's upsetting because this type of thinking imo hurt the development of SC2 a lot. Brood war is hard but it was casual friendly too because of custom maps. It's a shame really, I think if WoL had come out with the (free) arcade from the get go the game could have been even more popular among players. Casual mindsets are accommodated by casual game modes, if you prefer that then don't play on the competitive ladder. Im srsly not gatekeeping here btw, anyone can and should play Starcraft however they want. No question about that. But it's okay to acknowledge that you're just not that good at the game and you may never be able to be GM or whatever. I will never be Flash, hell I will likely never be top 2500 in US West for all I know...But that's ok -- I still love working on my mechanics and striving to be better. So If you're gold league then you're gold league, enjoy the game for what it is rather than asking that it change to accommodate your desire to be better. SC2 is a game, and you are welcome to play it as just a game without worrying about being good. I love playing basketball and I'm fucking atrocious at it, but I don't ask that the standard hoop height be reduced accordingly. If you want to be good at SC2 (like basketball) you have to practice and work for it. As one of many examples, I once spent like 30 mins in a row just practicing my drone split in Brood War. Start-split-reset game; start-split-reset game. Or sat there against the computer, marking down time stamps to see if I'm hitting the bechmark of have a Nexus started with 3 dragoons @ ~4:10 with the 1 gate FE build I stole from a Bisu replay. Deliberate. Practice. PS huge congrats on the new baby Nony~ | ||
|
Boggyb
2855 Posts
| ||
|
Immaterial
Canada510 Posts
On May 27 2018 06:26 Boggyb wrote: The piano doesn't have mechanics that serve no purpose but to make playing it more difficult. The game would still have an insane skill cap if you removed things like macro mechanics and gave players the ability to customize what information they have available. (e.g. a production tab, upgrade tab, or whatever along those lines) But what do you think this would accomplish? Like is this a discussion about what is good for the longevity of the game, what is good for maintaining a healthy competitive scene, what is good for casual players? And adding a production tab isn't removing an unnecessary mechanic, it's adding a new interface feature that eliminates another factor that differentiates skilled players. I get it, I really do, but I don't think it will make the game better and I will probably never believe otherwise. Easier does not equal better. As for the macro mechanics, as it stands they have already made them more forgiving (multiple injects etc) and they hardly represent ths insurmountable challenge. For example, to be a top tier Zerg you have to inject well and spread creep. you have to manage your econ and unit production. That's how you play the game. To play the trombone you have to manage your breathing, you have to know how to position the rod thingy etc. It's the nature of the beast, and we can either complain that it's not easier for us to play or practice and improve. Also note that they added macro mechanics out of a concern that with MBS and automine removed, infinite unit selection added and other such changes there may not be enough for top tier talented players to do to differentiate themselves. They wouldn't have to exist if not for some design decisions I personally tend to disagree with, at least in implementation. That's my opinion, and I know there is a reasonable limit. Like the video I think hotbid made years ago about the disgruntled Warcraft 2 player talking about how BW is way too easy etc. Obviously there is a line. But in SC2 I already dont send my workers to mine. I can push a single button to control my whole army. I can press a single button to select all of my warp Gates and begin producing. There is a counter for my probe count. Where does automation stop? Should my units move themselves out of fire when their health gets lower? Maybe my nexus should just produce probes automatically until it hits saturation. What makes the game easier does not necessarily make it better, and yes it is true what makes it harder does not by necessity make it better. But to suggest SC2 is too far on the "hard" side of the spectrum to me now to me is nonsense. Imo many people think they want a "more strategic game" but they don't really -- they want the game to be easier, so they can be better, because most players with bad mechanics think they are hidden strategic masterminds | ||
|
Kenny_mk1
31 Posts
You can just lay down notes, but guess what? most people still suck at writing music, and practicing an instrument can makes you better at writing music IF you're not brainlessly playing existing songs, which is the same than practicing an 2 base All-in (except those one will goes away from what you want and you HAVE to deal with it). Some gets does both (electronic&instrument) and are good, and some does only one and are good. It all depends on the people | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 27 2018 03:08 NonY wrote: It's a bit ridiculous how helpless some people act about the mechanical difficulty of SC2. If a 10 year old child begins practicing piano for 1 hour a day, after a year she will consistently be doing more difficult maneuvers with her fingers than what a lot of SC2 tasks require. Maybe you've come to resent mechanics because you haven't improved them in so long. It's not such a big deal to put aside a little bit of time figuring out how to do these tasks and then deliberately practicing them for a while in the unit trainer so that you can do them in a real game. But if that is such a big deal, then I guarantee there are people out there who understand the game better such that if you said "I can't do X, Y, or Z because they're too mechanically difficult" then they'd have other answers to improve your win rate. If you can't find these answers yourself, then don't go on forums saying the game doesn't reward strategy enough. You've just reached your limit. You missed the point. Some people want to play for fun, not to get better(they didn't reach their ceiling, they don't care, I know how to get better I just don't practice and focus on things I need to get better(e.g. regular supply block on 70, 140 & 190). On lower levels the mechanically better player will always won. I am diamond protoss. My Terran is trash(gold). I have no clue what I'm doing, but since my mechanics are so much better than the usual gold player(unless it's a master player who's leaving 50 games and then playing 50 games, met those) I won pretty consistently. Again, I have no clue what I'm doing. I don't follow any BO, I just build tons of rax, tons of orbitals and I try to get into the lategame where I just mule heavily and with 180 army supply I just stim a-move(with slight splitting against banes). This is what I resent. This is stupid. If someone has better knowledge of the game than I do and they don't have a chance because my "mechanics" are so much better, it's stupid in a strategy game. FFS, I got beaten by GM who just built marines medevac against colossi storm. THINK ABOUT THIS. No matter how good my storms were, no matter how my positioning was better, their macro was so much better they just a-moved into victory. No strategy involved, pure mechanical victory. yes, they are better, no doubts there, but I find this type of games dumb. | ||
|
Immaterial
Canada510 Posts
On May 27 2018 06:50 deacon.frost wrote: You missed the point. Some people want to play for fun, not to get better(they didn't reach their ceiling, they don't care, I know how to get better I just don't practice and focus on things I need to get better(e.g. regular supply block on 70, 140 & 190). On lower levels the mechanically better player will always won. I am diamond protoss. My Terran is trash(gold). I have no clue what I'm doing, but since my mechanics are so much better than the usual gold player(unless it's a master player who's leaving 50 games and then playing 50 games, met those) I won pretty consistently. Again, I have no clue what I'm doing. I don't follow any BO, I just build tons of rax, tons of orbitals and I try to get into the lategame where I just mule heavily and with 180 army supply I just stim a-move(with slight splitting against banes). This is what I resent. This is stupid. If someone has better knowledge of the game than I do and they don't have a chance because my "mechanics" are so much better, it's stupid in a strategy game. FFS, I got beaten by GM who just built marines medevac against colossi storm. THINK ABOUT THIS. No matter how good my storms were, no matter how my positioning was better, their macro was so much better they just a-moved into victory. No strategy involved, pure mechanical victory. yes, they are better, no doubts there, but I find this type of games dumb. But that's Starcraft man. Why do you think it is somehow better that wins be determined by strategy rather than mechanical skill? It's just how the game is and in my opinion should be. If we are playing football, and your team is being coached by Bill Belichek but is full of only highschool level players, whereas my team is coached by a fucking banana milkshake but is composed of college level players your team may have the sickest strat but you will get trounced (ignore age difference implied by college/Highschool, I just mean skill level). That's the way it bloody is, same goes for basketball, same goes for just about everything. If you're not as good at the base fundamentals of the game, I should absolutely be able to wreck you with just zealot/dragoon because I'm better at the game. Personally I never find my matches dumb because I can always identify a way in which it is my fault I lost, but I find that type of match soooo much less dumb than losing to a DT because my strategy didn't involve detection. That's what you're gonna get in practice, that is the end result of what you're suggesting -- build/strategy/unit comp > mechanical skill, and that may sound appealing in theory but it is so shitty in practice. Implementing a change to move the game in that direction is probably the best way to kill competitive SC2 forever. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16007 Posts
On May 27 2018 06:50 deacon.frost wrote: You missed the point. Some people want to play for fun, not to get better(they didn't reach their ceiling, they don't care, I know how to get better I just don't practice and focus on things I need to get better(e.g. regular supply block on 70, 140 & 190). On lower levels the mechanically better player will always won. I am diamond protoss. My Terran is trash(gold). I have no clue what I'm doing, but since my mechanics are so much better than the usual gold player(unless it's a master player who's leaving 50 games and then playing 50 games, met those) I won pretty consistently. Again, I have no clue what I'm doing. I don't follow any BO, I just build tons of rax, tons of orbitals and I try to get into the lategame where I just mule heavily and with 180 army supply I just stim a-move(with slight splitting against banes). This is what I resent. This is stupid. If someone has better knowledge of the game than I do and they don't have a chance because my "mechanics" are so much better, it's stupid in a strategy game. FFS, I got beaten by GM who just built marines medevac against colossi storm. THINK ABOUT THIS. No matter how good my storms were, no matter how my positioning was better, their macro was so much better they just a-moved into victory. No strategy involved, pure mechanical victory. yes, they are better, no doubts there, but I find this type of games dumb. Ahhh the old "I'm a strategical mastermind but because of how the game is designed I'm not as highly ranked as I should be" I think you're forgetting what the RT in RTS stands for. | ||
|
megamanx32
16 Posts
They did buff marauder, but so far the only use i found for it are 2 base timing attacks. And I don't really like that... I might as well cheese every game, if I am just aiming to do one finisher. Watching most pros - like Demuslim, etc... the best advice I can get was do not go late game. And that really doesn't make game fun at all. TvP was fav matchup for me. | ||
|
iloved3fly
Australia2 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
Pretty much this not. Not at all. I can only talk for myself, but when talking of mechanics, it is always in a relative way compared to strategical options to affect the game and never in an absolute way. You can look in an absolute way at it and come to that result, this would not provide much wisdom to yourself or the world hovewer. In an absolute point of view SC2 mechanics are just right, could be even a bit more if I was younger. I even believe SC2 mechanics are too easy to be maintained at certain levels. However the mechanical impact feels a bit too much compared to what you can do with them in terms of strategical decision making, which is not much. Its a bit like chess with only 3-4 variations in the first 10-15 turns (not the mechanics, but the strategy). In the relative world of evaluation mechanics, and calling them "too much", this is equivalent with claiming strategy is too few. This goes hand in hand with few comeback potential: As players you play and rank with have similar/equal mechanics as you, you can hardly make up for e.g. a disadvantage by being strategically superior. Mechanics are even a bit to easy to maintain, as they are too easy to keep up in mechanically challenging situations. That makes it useless to try and interrupt an opponent in "creative" ways and to try to come back over that. Players of the same level as you won't get interrupted more than yourself from that and when you are in disadvantage 90%:100%, both players are mechanically capable of utilizing the full capacity of their current macro, then those 90% vs 100% macro, fully mechanically utilized by both players, is the only thing that matters, and you can be stragically superior and creative as much as you want, you wont cut it. This is where BW is different. The higher requirement of mechanics to utilize the macro + micro potential the current situation is offering to you is even helpful to have it more easily interrupted by actions of your opponent, it is more volatile overall and especially in these situations, where you cannot build units in 10+ production buildings while microing a fight, which you easily can in SC2. In BW you can create mechanically more difficult situations for your opponent, hence the interruption is harder (more volatile as well in general), hence it matters less who was ahead in macro or mechanics. Both players cannot mechanically use their macro/micro potential of their current situations 100% anywere, so there is alot more going which has impact on that volatility. Didn't go too much into detail, but this is what the mechanics debate is about. SC2 ends up being decided about mechanics mostly, while having less mechanics than BW. It is less possible to overcome mechanic differences between players with strategical superior play, as all players almost all the time play at current situation 100% mechanics (micro + macro), no matter what you do to interrupt them. | ||
| ||
