|
On April 28 2007 01:21 Guybrush wrote:Im tired of losing because I dont play 24/7 - make the game less fastpaced. Ive practiced 24/7 and have perfect mechanics now - make the game fastpaced. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/41f32/41f32ccbf9c308e87a90fa896d4fd874e9b79ee6" alt=""
This is basically the same discussion as the thread I posted this in.
If stuff like automatic mining with rally points, multiple selection of gates and unlimited selection of units was implented in the game, the game would be easier thus more competition, but less interesting to observe.
The reason BW is amazing to observe is because we know what it takes to pull of the stuff they do. We know how hard it is to produce from a massive amount of barrackses, factories, gateways, while being in a battle, we know how hard it is to perfectly clone irradiates in a short time, we know how hard it is to micro those mutalisks good while spending cash, and we know how difficult it is to perfectly mudang storm 4-5 storms at once. We know the hours of practice required to do this and that's why we admire them.
Those reasons is why it's E-Sport - because it does take fast hands to pull of the stuff you see, and it does require much practice to get fast hands. If anyone could get the same skill with equal amount of practice it wouldnt be a "sport" or a "competition one would devote job-like time to".
Remember if E-Sport is going to grow - the practice-element has to be there or else noone would bother being progamers because they could easily compete with less practice which wouldnt exactly make the progaming scene grow.
Also if the pool of the elite players got too big the fans would get confused, and not be able to get to know each player. BW would not have been as popular if Boxer, Yellow and Garimto didnt dominate at a point. It's important to have personalities for every race in order for the fans to identify themselves with them.
If theres a new player who wins the biggest league everytime there would be less fans because only the hard-core fans knew who the player was. I remember someone wrote here once that koreans didnt follow progaming on as huge scale as expected but if someone mentioned it they would say "Lim Yo Hwan won this week?". It's like me saying "Federer won Nadal this weekend?". I dont particulary follow tennis, but I do know some of the best players.
If noone stood out as dominating then sure the game would be competitve as hell, but it wouldnt be interesting for other than the hardcore fans, because most fans identify with the player not neccessary his skills.
Theres alot of things that annoy me with Warcraft 3, but the biggest is probably the upkeep-thing. You actually get punished for macroing and focusing on having a better economy. You get less gold each time the worker returns a goldpatch the higher amount of units you have for those who didnt know that.
The second thing is all the spells. It's confusing to watch in a battle.
Third thing is the speed of the units. Yeah really impressing to move that unit when you had 3 seconds to do so and not 1 sec like when you dodge lurker-spines with marines.
Then finally theres the multiple selection building/automatic mining for workers with rally points - yet another anti-economic feature.
Finally my point is there has to be a balance between micro and macro. Naturally the game will start microintensive early on like with BW, and eventually be perfected with the supply of better macro.
If Blizzard wants the game to be successfull in Korea as a E-sport-game. Im pretty sure they have taken alot of inputs from them and Im sure we wont be disappointed.
|
On May 22 2007 05:43 Guybrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2007 01:21 Guybrush wrote:Im tired of losing because I dont play 24/7 - make the game less fastpaced. Ive practiced 24/7 and have perfect mechanics now - make the game fastpaced. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/41f32/41f32ccbf9c308e87a90fa896d4fd874e9b79ee6" alt="" This is basically the same discussion as the thread I posted this in. If stuff like automatic mining with rally points, multiple selection of gates and unlimited selection of units was implented in the game, the game would be easier thus more competition, but less interesting to observe. The reason BW is amazing to observe is because we know what it takes to pull of the stuff they do. We know how hard it is to produce from a massive amount of barrackses, factories, gateways, while being in a battle, we know how hard it is to perfectly clone irradiates in a short time, we know how hard it is to micro those mutalisks good while spending cash, and we know how difficult it is to perfectly mudang storm 4-5 storms at once. We know the hours of practice required to do this and that's why we admire them. Those reasons is why it's E-Sport - because it does take fast hands to pull of the stuff you see, and it does require much practice to get fast hands. If anyone could get the same skill with equal amount of practice it wouldnt be a "sport" or a "competition one would devote job-like time to". Remember if E-Sport is going to grow - the practice-element has to be there or else noone would bother being progamers because they could easily compete with less practice which wouldnt exactly make the progaming scene grow. Also if the pool of the elite players got too big the fans would get confused, and not be able to get to know each player. BW would not have been as popular if Boxer, Yellow and Garimto didnt dominate at a point. It's important to have personalities for every race in order for the fans to identify themselves with them. If theres a new player who wins the biggest league everytime there would be less fans because only the hard-core fans knew who the player was. I remember someone wrote here once that koreans didnt follow progaming on as huge scale as expected but if someone mentioned it they would say "Lim Yo Hwan won this week?". It's like me saying "Federer won Nadal this weekend?". I dont particulary follow tennis, but I do know some of the best players. If noone stood out as dominating then sure the game would be competitve as hell, but it wouldnt be interesting for other than the hardcore fans, because most fans identify with the player not neccessary his skills. Theres alot of things that annoy me with Warcraft 3, but the biggest is probably the upkeep-thing. You actually get punished for macroing and focusing on having a better economy. You get less gold each time the worker returns a goldpatch the higher amount of units you have for those who didnt know that. The second thing is all the spells. It's confusing to watch in a battle. Third thing is the speed of the units. Yeah really impressing to move that unit when you had 3 seconds to do so and not 1 sec like when you dodge lurker-spines with marines. Then finally theres the multiple selection building/automatic mining for workers with rally points - yet another anti-economic feature. Finally my point is there has to be a balance between micro and macro. Naturally the game will start microintensive early on like with BW, and eventually be perfected with the supply of better macro. If Blizzard wants the game to be successfull in Korea as a E-sport-game. Im pretty sure they have taken alot of inputs from them and Im sure we wont be disappointed.
The thing is though, you can't make it a good E-Sport game at the expense of casual play. Yes Warcraft 3 was designed to punish macro a lot but I don't think the improved interface for unit and building selection was a part of that.
|
Macromanagement means to keep your economy running, expanding at the right moments to the best locations, picking the right upgrades, building towards and producing the right units in time, spying on the enemy, predicting his moves and, hopefully, outsmarting him. It requires knowledge about the tech-trees (for prerequisites), the map (where to defend, where to attack, where to expand) and potent unit-combinations (which units are most effective against enemy unit combinations).
Multitasking refers to being able to do many things at the same time. StarCraft enables the player to use a variety of shortcuts to jump to a specific position on the map and give fast orders. Having this skill means, for example, to defend and attack at the same time, while not neglecting your micro-management and still working efficiently towards your long-term goals. If the opponent is confident, he might try to distract you with something, usually surprise unit drops, for you to take care of in order to 'steal your time'.
If someone will explain to me how multiple building selection screws this up I would be truly thankful.
Why so many people can't understand some facts?
- even with multiple building selection there still will be macro and multitasking involved, it will be a mix of sc and wc3 (yes, you have this things in wc3, they're just different). The differences will be: different from sc: it will be simplier/faster and not so attention-demanding. different from wc3: it will be managing your resources on a far greater scale, massing units and buildings instead of creating few units from few buildings
- and actually when you talk about closing the skill gap I think that's exactly what Blizzard wants to do. They're releasing a completely new game (just imagine how wc3 is different from wc2) and if the very same people that are on the top now would be on the top again right from the start don't you think it would be boring? Sure all SC/WC3 players will have advantage over new people but why make it so drastic?
|
Those definitons arent what people usually think of when they read those terms, allthough I agree they make sense especially the Multitasking definition. The macromanagement definition seems way different from most players grasp of the term macro.
I think these are the most common presumptions of the two terms:
Macro = Focusing on getting the best possible economy and limiting as fast as possible. Tempest the T1-Protoss player is a perfect example of a player with exceptional macro.
Multitasking = The ability to do different actions at different places on the map at almost exactly same time. Best example I can think of is Nada dropping 5 different bases with 5 dropships at once vs Jy on Luna.
|
Braavos36370 Posts
On May 22 2007 03:12 Zironic wrote: However you'll still need to know Exactly what you're doing and how to exploit your opponents weaknesses, practise wouldn't be devauled in any way except that the basic tasks would get simpler.
E-Sports have never been meant to be a purely physical sport. When it comes to E-Sport Strategy games I've always thought of them as more like Chess where Strategical and Tactical brilliance is more important then pure physical skills, although in starcraft you'll have to be a much faster thinker then in alot of other games. that's your opinion on what qualifies as "purely physical." who is to say strategical and tactical brilliance isn't as physical as fast fingers? some people are fast, through genetics or practice or both. some people are brilliant strategically, through genetics or practice or both. you need both to be good at SC1, and i don't see why we should arbitrarily value one over the other like you seem to imply.
its ridiculously difficult to make a game as strategically deep as chess. there's always a ceiling for strategy and innovation and we've almost reached it for Brood War in Korea. look at the builds and training, it's down to a science. yes there are a few innovators like Boxer or Nal_rA, but everything is so regimented down to the second now (with practice partners, training, knowledge, etc) that its become a race to see who can multitask and execute better.
all sports will eventually come down to which player is faster or stronger. "strategy" is just something that is a lot easier to develop than speed. you can practice it more, and its accessible to the entire population. it's nice and exciting for us to say "wow he's strategically brilliant!" because it makes that player seem more like us. but when you really break it down, there are no more "slow but smart" players in BW. you have to be fast to be a pro brood war player, and you have to be fast and smart to be a champion. i'm sure there are plenty of dumb fast guys in korea that make it off purely memorized builds from coaches and practice partners, but have you seen a sub 200apm guy who's strategically brilliant? no, because those guys simply can't cut it. you can train perfect build orders and counters, you can't train nada multitask.
for example, it's similar to basketball. in the NBA we love stories the short guy that jumps really high, or maybe the guy who worked like crazy and knows everything about the game. but as the game evolves we're seeing 6'9" point guards and seven footers that can shoot 3's, and you don't see them lowering the basket to make the game "less physical."
for E-sports to succeed they have to embrace the physical aspect. this is what makes it a sport--the speed. everything else the average smart guy can learn.
Ofcourse to become a pro you'll need both the physical skills and the brilliant mind but I don't think going between lots of buildings to build units is where such greatness should be shown. It's better if all that APM is channeled into more meaningfull things like battle micro and expansion.
If a brilliant player with a rather poor APM is up against a pretty mediocre player with a huge APM I think the brilliant player should have a decent chance to win and not lose just because the interface limits what he can do with his units and buildings.
So far everything blizzard has shown points towards them agreeing with me on this point(That APM should be used on gameplay and not basic tasks). Again, its your opinion what is "basic" and what is not. The key is finding the delicate balance between simply interface limitations and really dumbing down key multitask and speed skills. If you really want it to be about strategy why not just eliminate micro altogether and make macro automated?
That scenario about the brilliant player with rather poor APM is just like a short guy who knows everything about basketball but isn't big or tall enough versus a tall, athletic player who is dumb as fuck. Why does the short guy deserve a chance in the NBA just because he knows more or is strategically gifted? He can be a coach, but leave the playing to the tall people. In general strategy can be taught, but you can't teach speed or height.
Somewhere along the way people (especially the foreign community) seemed to see "strategical" brilliance in BW as something worth celebrating while "simply being faster" as something that shouldn't be. Like "he only beat him because he's faster" as if its something that's any less impressive. Well no duh, Michael Jordan only beats you because he can jump higher and shoot better.
The precedent for E-Sports is that speed and multitask are what separates normal people from the pros, and thats what makes it a sport.
|
On May 22 2007 06:06 Guybrush wrote: Those definitons arent what people usually think of when they read those terms, allthough I agree they make sense especially the Multitasking definition. The macromanagement definition seems way different from most players grasp of the term macro.
I think these are the most common presumptions of the two terms:
Macro = Focusing on getting the best possible economy and limiting as fast as possible. Tempest the T1-Protoss player is a perfect example of a player with exceptional macro.
Multitasking = The ability to do different actions at different places on the map at almost exactly same time. Best example I can think of is Nada dropping 5 different bases with 5 dropships at once vs Jy on Luna.
I still don't see even with those definitions how the game would become worse with some easier controls for the Macro. There would still be a huuge difference between someone good at macro and someone decent at it.
|
On May 22 2007 05:52 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +Macromanagement means to keep your economy running, expanding at the right moments to the best locations, picking the right upgrades, building towards and producing the right units in time, spying on the enemy, predicting his moves and, hopefully, outsmarting him. It requires knowledge about the tech-trees (for prerequisites), the map (where to defend, where to attack, where to expand) and potent unit-combinations (which units are most effective against enemy unit combinations).
Multitasking refers to being able to do many things at the same time. StarCraft enables the player to use a variety of shortcuts to jump to a specific position on the map and give fast orders. Having this skill means, for example, to defend and attack at the same time, while not neglecting your micro-management and still working efficiently towards your long-term goals. If the opponent is confident, he might try to distract you with something, usually surprise unit drops, for you to take care of in order to 'steal your time'. If someone will explain to me how multiple building selection screws this up I would be truly thankful. Why so many people can't understand some facts? - even with multiple building selection there still will be macro and multitasking involved, it will be a mix of sc and wc3 (yes, you have this things in wc3, they're just different). The differences will be: different from sc: it will be simplier/faster and not so attention-demanding. different from wc3: it will be managing your resources on a far greater scale, massing units and buildings instead of creating few units from few buildings - and actually when you talk about closing the skill gap I think that's exactly what Blizzard wants to do. They're releasing a completely new game (just imagine how wc3 is different from wc2) and if the very same people that are on the top now would be on the top again right from the start don't you think it would be boring? Sure all SC/WC3 players will have advantage over new people but why make it so drastic?
1. Imagine TvsZ with multiple building selection. Then tell me that 0m 9s is just as hard as manually clicking your 10+ raxes and producing marines and manually clicking all your command centers to make scvs. TvsZ would be much, much easier if you had multiple-building selection. To the point where I wonder if Z could ever win a starleague game that lasts longer than 5 minutes.
2. This is not what we mean when we are talking about closing the skill gap. We are talking about the skill gap between pro-gamers and amateurs in general, not the gap between the current pro-gamers and the current amateurs.
|
On May 22 2007 06:12 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 05:52 Manit0u wrote:Macromanagement means to keep your economy running, expanding at the right moments to the best locations, picking the right upgrades, building towards and producing the right units in time, spying on the enemy, predicting his moves and, hopefully, outsmarting him. It requires knowledge about the tech-trees (for prerequisites), the map (where to defend, where to attack, where to expand) and potent unit-combinations (which units are most effective against enemy unit combinations).
Multitasking refers to being able to do many things at the same time. StarCraft enables the player to use a variety of shortcuts to jump to a specific position on the map and give fast orders. Having this skill means, for example, to defend and attack at the same time, while not neglecting your micro-management and still working efficiently towards your long-term goals. If the opponent is confident, he might try to distract you with something, usually surprise unit drops, for you to take care of in order to 'steal your time'. If someone will explain to me how multiple building selection screws this up I would be truly thankful. Why so many people can't understand some facts? - even with multiple building selection there still will be macro and multitasking involved, it will be a mix of sc and wc3 (yes, you have this things in wc3, they're just different). The differences will be: different from sc: it will be simplier/faster and not so attention-demanding. different from wc3: it will be managing your resources on a far greater scale, massing units and buildings instead of creating few units from few buildings - and actually when you talk about closing the skill gap I think that's exactly what Blizzard wants to do. They're releasing a completely new game (just imagine how wc3 is different from wc2) and if the very same people that are on the top now would be on the top again right from the start don't you think it would be boring? Sure all SC/WC3 players will have advantage over new people but why make it so drastic? 1. Imagine TvsZ with multiple building selection. Then tell me that 0m 9s is just as hard as manually clicking your 10+ raxes and producing marines and manually clicking all your command centers to make scvs. TvsZ would be much, much easier if you had multiple-building selection. To the point where I wonder if Z could ever win a starleague game that lasts longer than 5 minutes. 2. This is not what we mean when we are talking about closing the skill gap. We are talking about the skill gap between pro-gamers and amateurs in general, not the gap between the current pro-gamers and the current amateurs.
1) You can't really use Starcraft 1 unit balance when discussing Starcraft 2 Interface. The units will of course be designed so all race combinations will be balanced with unlimited selection, It's not like they would take Starcraft 1 and just update the interface and graphics and leave it at that :O
|
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
ive got an even better idea. make something called "auto-build" which is same as "auto-cast" in WC3 where the unit casts the spell whenever he can.
with "auto-build" on at your gateways, the gates will instantly build a new unit the millisecond it is done with the previous, so you never lose any "build-time" and never lose any money on qued units, giving you EVEN MORE time for micro and strategy and skills and all that jazzzzzzzz.
oh and btw the gates also know your ratio of units in your army so if all your zealots are dieing it will start to build zealots and then stalkers if they're dieing and so on. SOUNDS LIKE AN AWESOME IDEA BITCHES.
edit: wtf did everyone totally miss the sarcasm there? i get quoted twice and make me soudn as if im serious abt this multi-selecting dumbass retarded nexus destroyers style bullshit....
|
Braavos36370 Posts
brood war at the pro level has basically come down to a test of multitasking and speed. if you look at the strategies that are being employed right now, it's not like there's going to be some new guy going to korea and revolutionizing the scene with his new strategy.
the new builds and styles are just a reaction to players getting faster and with better multitask. the bisu build, the trend to have earlier hive and defilers in zvt, these strategies are not "brilliant," in the sense that they are innovative, they are just great at maximizing the multitask potential of the players. once players see the strategy once they can copy it down to the second due to practice partners, vods, replays, but it all just comes down to who can do it faster and with better multitask.
if sc2 dumbs down the multitask too much, all the strategy will be the same once the initial innovation period is over, and the execution will also be the same because you will be able to do everything with perfect macro. i'm not saying lower the unit selection to 1 or that you have to manually mine minerals, but you also can't just allow for select+all buildings press M make 10 marines. yes i know that macro is more than that, but there has to be a balance.
|
On May 22 2007 06:17 pyrogenetix wrote: ive got an even better idea. make something called "auto-build" which is same as "auto-cast" in WC3 where the unit casts the spell whenever he can.
with "auto-build" on at your gateways, the gates will instantly build a new unit the millisecond it is done with the previous, so you never lose any "build-time" and never lose any money on qued units, giving you EVEN MORE time for micro and strategy and skills and all that jazzzzzzzz.
oh and btw the gates also know your ratio of units in your army so if all your zealots are dieing it will start to build zealots and then stalkers if they're dieing and so on. SOUNDS LIKE AN AWESOME IDEA BITCHES.
Although I like the concept of autobuild in other games like supreme commander I think it might be going a step too far in Starcraft 2. I just want the more annoying and repetitive tasks of macro removed.
On May 22 2007 06:19 Hot_Bid wrote: brood war at the pro level has basically come down to a test of multitasking and speed.
if you look at the strategies that are being employed right now, it's not like there's going to be some guy going to korea and revolutionizing the scene with his new strategy.
the new builds and styles are just a reaction to players getting faster and with better multitask.
the bisu build, the trend to have earlier hive and defilers in zvt, these strategies are not brilliant, they just are great at maximizing the multitask potential of the players. once players see the strategy once they can copy it down to the second due to practice partners, vods, replays, but it all just comes down to who can do it faster and with better multitask.
Wouldn't it be great if they manage to create enough depth in Starcraft 2 so there will never be any "ultimate" builds and there will be several valid strategies in the same match ups. What if they manage to make the game so complex that there are always new strategies and tactics invented?
|
On May 22 2007 06:17 pyrogenetix wrote: ive got an even better idea. make something called "auto-build" which is same as "auto-cast" in WC3 where the unit casts the spell whenever he can.
with "auto-build" on at your gateways, the gates will instantly build a new unit the millisecond it is done with the previous, so you never lose any "build-time" and never lose any money on qued units, giving you EVEN MORE time for micro and strategy and skills and all that jazzzzzzzz.
oh and btw the gates also know your ratio of units in your army so if all your zealots are dieing it will start to build zealots and then stalkers if they're dieing and so on. SOUNDS LIKE AN AWESOME IDEA BITCHES.
Yeah, we can also get "auto-fight" which micros for you and does the fighting for you. All you have to worry about is panning the camera.
|
Braavos36370 Posts
On May 22 2007 06:23 Zironic wrote: Wouldn't it be great if they manage to create enough depth in Starcraft 2 so there will never be any "ultimate" builds and there will be several valid strategies in the same match ups. What if they manage to make the game so complex that there are always new strategies and tactics invented? these expectations are entirely unrealistic. you can't expect blizzard to make an RTS version of chess. it's impossible.
when you have hundreds of players practicing for a living at one thing, the ceiling tends to be reached ridiculously quickly. the proscene in korea is likely going to reach a skill level in SC2 many times faster than it reached the point now in SC1, simply because of how established it is already there.
we're going to see ridiculously efficient builds and strategies, close to perfect even, really, really fast. when you have 12 hours a day and an entire team devoted to figuring shit down to the second, it's going to happen.
it's amazing that SC1 has the potential for skill differentiation that it does. but its not because of strategy or gamesense or timing or builds, because all of it can be trained. yes you have players who are better at those things, but the real reason for the "deep" skill difference in SC1 is speed and multitask.
if they implement too many "help" features like sub groups and select+alls, within a year or two of SC2 coming out all builds and replays will look the same. they simply are underestimating how nuts the proscene is.
|
On May 22 2007 06:28 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 06:23 Zironic wrote: Wouldn't it be great if they manage to create enough depth in Starcraft 2 so there will never be any "ultimate" builds and there will be several valid strategies in the same match ups. What if they manage to make the game so complex that there are always new strategies and tactics invented? these expectations are entirely unrealistic. you can't expect blizzard to make an RTS version of chess. it's impossible. when you have hundreds of players practicing for a living at one thing, the ceiling tends to be reached ridiculously quickly. the proscene in korea is likely going to reach a skill level in SC2 many times faster than it reached the point now in SC1, simply because of how established it is already there. we're going to see ridiculously efficient builds and strategies, close to perfect even, really, really fast. when you have 12 hours a day and an entire team devoted to figuring shit down to the second, it's going to happen. it's amazing that SC1 has the potential for skill differentiation that it does. gamesense, timing, builds, all of it can be trained. the reason for the "deep" skill difference is speed and multitask, not strategy variation. if they implement too many "help" features like sub groups and select+alls, within a year or two of SC2 coming out all builds and replays will look the same. they simply are underestimating how nuts the proscene is.
Warcraft 3 still has new strategies coming up all the time, seriously one of the pro Warcraft 3 players is known for managing to win by building defenses in the enemy base. I fully expect that Blizzard can come up with the RTS version of chess, you're just a pessimist.
Making the RTS version of chess isn't impossible, it's just HARD. And Blizzard are the best after all :=)
|
Even though I pushed hard for speed requirments in my other post on multi select i think you are overrestimating the speed differences of todays progamers. In the ~~top 300 range I was under the impression that pure click-through-gates and micro wise things were fairly even. I really really doubt the reason oov builds more units than anyone else is because he clicks through his factories faster... just for the reason you stated such a thing would be very easy to train.
|
Great post by EmS.Radagast on the Battle.net forum:
I think the best analogy in terms of sports is to car racing. When automatic transmission for race cars reached the level where it outperformed manual control by human racers, it was introduced into racing. The pros didn't whine and #@%$! that now any driving noob can beat a pro racer because he doesnt have to know how to shift gears like a pro anymore. Instead, they adapted. Now they're arguably doing even better at all the other aspects of racing, and the competition is still as fierce as ever.
Moral of the story: The exact mechanical details of what competition is based on AREN'T what's really important for the sport. As long as it's entertaining for the audience, and there's enough talented individuals (or teams) doing all they can to beat each other at the competition, it can be a successful televised sport. And I have news for you, the audience isn't entertained by the button mashing speed of iloveoov, it's actually by what his 34987247 units are doing on the field against those of the other guy. If you don't believe that, you are more than welcome to take another look at what they are showing you on television. Hint: No, it's not the unit queues on the Barracks, and it's not even the unit queues on the Factories. And -USUALLY- it's not even his hands constantly ninja smashing the keyboard. ZOMG.
|
Braavos36370 Posts
On May 22 2007 06:33 Zironic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 06:28 Hot_Bid wrote:On May 22 2007 06:23 Zironic wrote: Wouldn't it be great if they manage to create enough depth in Starcraft 2 so there will never be any "ultimate" builds and there will be several valid strategies in the same match ups. What if they manage to make the game so complex that there are always new strategies and tactics invented? these expectations are entirely unrealistic. you can't expect blizzard to make an RTS version of chess. it's impossible. when you have hundreds of players practicing for a living at one thing, the ceiling tends to be reached ridiculously quickly. the proscene in korea is likely going to reach a skill level in SC2 many times faster than it reached the point now in SC1, simply because of how established it is already there. we're going to see ridiculously efficient builds and strategies, close to perfect even, really, really fast. when you have 12 hours a day and an entire team devoted to figuring shit down to the second, it's going to happen. it's amazing that SC1 has the potential for skill differentiation that it does. gamesense, timing, builds, all of it can be trained. the reason for the "deep" skill difference is speed and multitask, not strategy variation. if they implement too many "help" features like sub groups and select+alls, within a year or two of SC2 coming out all builds and replays will look the same. they simply are underestimating how nuts the proscene is. Warcraft 3 still has new strategies coming up all the time, seriously one of the pro Warcraft 3 players is known for managing to win by building defenses in the enemy base. I fully expect that Blizzard can come up with the RTS version of chess, you're just a pessimist. Making the RTS version of chess isn't impossible, it's just HARD. And Blizzard are the best after all :=) warcraft 3 frozen throne came out like two years ago and there are 4 races, a whole new set of matchups, and it's still being patched. someone who is familiar with the war3 proscene please interject here, i don't know that much about it, but i'm sure it's advancing the same way SC1 did, standardized strategies with players looking at lot like each other except for the very very top.
i don't think anyone really is fully expecting SC2 to be better than SC1. it'd be tremendously difficult, and SC1 was great but 10 years old as opposed to chess which has been around for centuries? in 100 years will we still have SC1 competitions? expecting blizzard to come out with a game that has that sort of depth and longevity is unrealistic.
|
On May 22 2007 06:44 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 06:33 Zironic wrote:On May 22 2007 06:28 Hot_Bid wrote:On May 22 2007 06:23 Zironic wrote: Wouldn't it be great if they manage to create enough depth in Starcraft 2 so there will never be any "ultimate" builds and there will be several valid strategies in the same match ups. What if they manage to make the game so complex that there are always new strategies and tactics invented? these expectations are entirely unrealistic. you can't expect blizzard to make an RTS version of chess. it's impossible. when you have hundreds of players practicing for a living at one thing, the ceiling tends to be reached ridiculously quickly. the proscene in korea is likely going to reach a skill level in SC2 many times faster than it reached the point now in SC1, simply because of how established it is already there. we're going to see ridiculously efficient builds and strategies, close to perfect even, really, really fast. when you have 12 hours a day and an entire team devoted to figuring shit down to the second, it's going to happen. it's amazing that SC1 has the potential for skill differentiation that it does. gamesense, timing, builds, all of it can be trained. the reason for the "deep" skill difference is speed and multitask, not strategy variation. if they implement too many "help" features like sub groups and select+alls, within a year or two of SC2 coming out all builds and replays will look the same. they simply are underestimating how nuts the proscene is. Warcraft 3 still has new strategies coming up all the time, seriously one of the pro Warcraft 3 players is known for managing to win by building defenses in the enemy base. I fully expect that Blizzard can come up with the RTS version of chess, you're just a pessimist. Making the RTS version of chess isn't impossible, it's just HARD. And Blizzard are the best after all :=) warcraft 3 frozen throne came out like two years ago and there are 4 races, a whole new set of matchups, and it's still being patched. someone who is familiar with the war3 proscene please interject here, i don't know that much about it, but i'm sure it's advancing the same way SC1 did, standardized strategies with players looking at lot like each other except for the very very top. i don't think anyone really is fully expecting SC2 to be better than SC1. it'd be tremendously difficult, and SC1 was great but 10 years old as opposed to chess which has been around for centuries? in 100 years will we still have SC1 competitions? expecting blizzard to come out with a game that has that sort of depth and longevity is unrealistic.
I don't think SC2 will survive for centuries like Chess but I hope that it will be deep enough for new strategies to be invented 10 years after release, or at least deep enough that you have different options in the same match up.
From WC3 a problem is that for some match ups like Orc Vs Human the human will almost always go Rifles+Casters and win 60% of the time. If the human wants to try a different strategy he either has to be Gosu or Lucky.
From the interviews it seems like Blizzard wants to make more varied build orders viable so you can't just focus on perfecting one.
|
Braavos36370 Posts
On May 22 2007 06:49 Zironic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 06:44 Hot_Bid wrote:On May 22 2007 06:33 Zironic wrote:On May 22 2007 06:28 Hot_Bid wrote:On May 22 2007 06:23 Zironic wrote: Wouldn't it be great if they manage to create enough depth in Starcraft 2 so there will never be any "ultimate" builds and there will be several valid strategies in the same match ups. What if they manage to make the game so complex that there are always new strategies and tactics invented? these expectations are entirely unrealistic. you can't expect blizzard to make an RTS version of chess. it's impossible. when you have hundreds of players practicing for a living at one thing, the ceiling tends to be reached ridiculously quickly. the proscene in korea is likely going to reach a skill level in SC2 many times faster than it reached the point now in SC1, simply because of how established it is already there. we're going to see ridiculously efficient builds and strategies, close to perfect even, really, really fast. when you have 12 hours a day and an entire team devoted to figuring shit down to the second, it's going to happen. it's amazing that SC1 has the potential for skill differentiation that it does. gamesense, timing, builds, all of it can be trained. the reason for the "deep" skill difference is speed and multitask, not strategy variation. if they implement too many "help" features like sub groups and select+alls, within a year or two of SC2 coming out all builds and replays will look the same. they simply are underestimating how nuts the proscene is. Warcraft 3 still has new strategies coming up all the time, seriously one of the pro Warcraft 3 players is known for managing to win by building defenses in the enemy base. I fully expect that Blizzard can come up with the RTS version of chess, you're just a pessimist. Making the RTS version of chess isn't impossible, it's just HARD. And Blizzard are the best after all :=) warcraft 3 frozen throne came out like two years ago and there are 4 races, a whole new set of matchups, and it's still being patched. someone who is familiar with the war3 proscene please interject here, i don't know that much about it, but i'm sure it's advancing the same way SC1 did, standardized strategies with players looking at lot like each other except for the very very top. i don't think anyone really is fully expecting SC2 to be better than SC1. it'd be tremendously difficult, and SC1 was great but 10 years old as opposed to chess which has been around for centuries? in 100 years will we still have SC1 competitions? expecting blizzard to come out with a game that has that sort of depth and longevity is unrealistic. I don't think SC2 will survive for centuries like Chess but I hope that it will be deep enough for new strategies to be invented 10 years after release. i'm sure they will, the metagame in SC1 is still very much alive. but much of this is dependent on just how much speed and multitask ceiling the game has.
if you look at the current proscene, virtually every single Terran FE's in TvZ. there are obviously the random odd game where they don't, but it's pretty much the standard now. you could argue that it's because of certain maps with certain naturals that allow for FEs, but again those naturals are necessary so that ZvT is not ridiculously imbalanced. one base vs one base ZvT is impossible with the level of macro and micro pro terrans have right now. it's down to such a science that whether it's savior or july vs amateur practice partner, as long as it's TvZ on a map with no natural and 1 gas, the Terran will win like 90% of the time.
tweaks like modified 3 hatch builds vs Terran and different FE tech timings are today's "new strategies." you're not going to see some ridiculous completely new build 10 years down the line, only small metagame and map-specific differences.
DMZ is a good example of how delicate the balance for this is. No matter how much pro's practice on that map, they've clearly figured out that SCV rush is the best strategy. Timing on it and what your partner does can be tweaked, but its always a modified SCV rush. Boxer or NaDa or some amateur Terran, they are all going to SCV rush. Boxer's may be better, but the difference is so slight since the strategy has such a low ceiling that it's not even fun to watch and they had to eliminate the map.
That is what we're scared of when they noobify macro in SC2. Making macro easier is not going to diversify build orders because somehow Pros can focus on them more. Rather, it's going to do the opposite, 90% of Pros will be able to execute the best BOs because they don't have to be as fast or multitask as well.
|
you remember when they introduced right click rally?? people were complaining a lot!!! lol
|
|
|
|