|
On March 17 2011 09:22 Rashid wrote:I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed. He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on who outplaying you're opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually.
Just because a games mechanics are hard does not mean it lacks strategy. At the top level you should need both mechanics and strategy to win. At lower levels you should be able to win one or the other. Also, i think he was talking about the individual not teams.
|
On March 17 2011 08:18 infinity2k9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote:
If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game. Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made?
If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win?
People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR.
Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics.
|
Making mechanics harder isn't gonna do a thing. Once people are better at handling them the problems we have atm (BO roulette basically) are still going to be there.
|
On March 17 2011 09:22 Rashid wrote:I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed. He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on outplaying your opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually. 99% of people who bought and play Starcraft 2 didn't play it because they think they can be the best in the world. They bought it because it's the sequel to one of the best RTS games ever made, the game that they played when they were kids, and hoping to have tons of fun with the game with out having any old-skool elitism get in the way.
He also says there's exceptions in Basketball sometimes but generally height and physical advantage is important, did you just skim through it or read it properly? You just go on repeat the exact thing that is refuted in his posts. There isn't much depth in 'strategy, wits, deception' in Starcraft 1 or 2. There's no room for constant innovation, most players will be using a known build or at least a refined version of it until everyone copies. The game you are looking for if you want those things is just not Starcraft. Now and then we get some great strategical play which surprises everyone but how can that happen very often when theres hundreds of thousands of games played every day?
Now you just added an extra paragraph which basically makes the rest pointless. We're talking about eSports not 99% of the people who bought the game. If they can't do the advanced mechanics why would it even matter? Thats why theres matchmaking.
On March 17 2011 09:27 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 08:18 infinity2k9 wrote:On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote:
If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game. Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made? If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win? People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR. Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics.
The guy wasn't saying slightly less skill; He was saying if he builds the counter he should win. No mention of execution in there or being only slightly less mechanically skilled.
As people are constantly saying its a balance between the two.
|
On March 17 2011 09:22 Rashid wrote:I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed. He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on who outplaying your opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually. 99% of people who bought and play Starcraft 2 didn't play it because they think they can be the best in the world. They bought it because it's the sequel to one of the best RTS games ever made, the game that they played when they were kids, and hoping to have tons of fun with the game with out having any old-skool elitism get in the way.
The beauty of Starcraft 1 was that you needed a huge amount of BOTH strategy and mechanics to be successful. That's what made it so incredibly exciting to watch, that's what made it so difficult to play, that's what made you feel so absolutely AMAZING after you beat a good player on iccup. Because you beat him in both aspects - strategy AND mechanics. I see people on TL all the time lately arguing that SC2 should be only about strategy, but they are only arguing against the idea that SC2 should be only about mechanics. The truth is that it needs to be about both to be a truly beautiful esport and to have a maximum amount of competition and excitement.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On March 17 2011 09:27 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 08:18 infinity2k9 wrote:On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote:
If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game. Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made? If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win? People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR. Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics.
Noone is trying to say that you should win solely based upon mechanics, however it would play an important role in how skilled a player is. Can a person macro with difficult mechanics while maintaing micro, strategic insight, gamesense and decision making? It is part of the bigger picture.
Also the Baneling Marine micro example is getting old, it in fact 1 of the only if not THE ONLY twosided micro there is in SC2 currently.
|
Hot_Bid's posts should pretty much put an end to this thread, or any other thread regarding mechanics and strategy, and the inherent volatility of games where physical skill is diminished.
Sure, the metagame and maps will (hopefully) continue to evolve in SC2, but when innovation stops occuring on a regular basis, the only thing that's left is mechanics. No one can win consistently by "out-thinking" the opponent in a RTS game of limited information. To the person who brought up the Brazilian soccer team - soccer is a game with an EXTREMELY high (if not limitless) skill ceiling, where some of that is also team chemistry. If a Brazilian team of pros, thrown together in less than a day, were brought in to compete against some college team that's been playing together for 4 years, the Brazilian team will still EASILY dominate. The point is, the skill gap is so large, it's unfathomable. That's not the case here in SC2. Also, team chemistry (which is why teams comprised of slighty "lesser" skilled individual players win) isn't strategy - it's actually part of "mechanics" (having practiced together so they know each others' strengths/weaknesses/styles etc).
I think there are two camps to this: one that enjoys the volatility, and one that enjoys stability. Many people loved the NBA back in the 80's, when it was essentially just two teams chock full of all-stars battling it out in every Finals. I personally think the NBA has become as exciting as ever with what the Miami Heat just did, and what the Lakers and Boston did a few years back (Gasol, Ray Allen + KG). People love to see titans battling it out - it's why TBLS are so revered in the BW scene, and why people loved Boxer, NaDa, Oov, and Savior back when they were dominating.
The other camp I suppose are the ones who don't care about the individual players as long as the level of the games are high. I sympathize with such people, but quite frankly, I think the majority of the spectators have their own favorites, and would love for them to do well all the time. Mvp gained a TON of bandwagon fans when he dominated S4, and I'm sure July/MC would explode with new fans when one of them wins S5. It's just how the mentality of the "average" fan works.
|
On March 17 2011 09:27 PJA wrote:
If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win?
People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR.
Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics.
It will always be dependant on that unique situation, whether your strat is good enough to defeat his superior mechanics, or if your mechanics can carry your strat all the way through and not fail you.
Mechanics are important, no matter what people on this topic say.
If you're playing at a high level, you can have as wild strats as you want, but if your mechanics can't keep up with them, that's a flaw in your play.
SC2 mechanics are streamlined enough that you don't need to be a korean practicing 20 hours a day to have borderline optimal mechanics, even though it will obviously help, and this allows for deeper strategies and tactics to develop, but it is still a game where you control just about every portion of your race, and mechanics will play in.
|
starcraft does have some very volatile matchups but i dont think mvp is a good example. PvP is by and far the very worst that the game has to offer, and when its between two players of equal caliber its nothing more than a crapshoot. I dont think im alone when I say that PvP is not at an esport level state of balance/watchability.
with mvp as an example, i think tvp is one of the more far matchups in sc2
openers can be build order roulette as we saw in the 3gate early pressure expand vs fe
other than that he was off his game. pushed at awkward times, the last game his army got flanked out of position and wrecked. i was ok with that, he played (by his standards) poorly
|
I tend not to pay attention to the players as much (with the exception of maybe idra and a few others) but I find pro-games split off into three categories: one being somebody does an early aggression and cuts drones/probes/scvs to do it, those games are usually short and often extremely volatile, and really don't show off the potential of either player. The other is a nice solid macro game, with drops and multiple expansions. Those are a lot less volatile, and I think once people figure out how to stop early aggression the macro games will stabilize and show us who really is the best of the best.
The third category is when one the players does something crazy unexpected, and then it becomes who can think quicker on their feet. My favorite kind of game personally
|
Problem is, I m sure as some people have said. There is not enough defenders advantage, especially early and particularly when protoss attacks since they can:
- removing reinforcement distance or the ability to cut reinforcements
- forcefield to split units, cut concaves, protect from melee, shut down bunkers, prevent running
- best unit retention in the early game (high hp, shields)
- get more probes early while other races are catching up using their respective macro mechanics.
Still, its not just protoss, slings are very strong early game before their counter units can arrive, and mass marine dps is insane as well. Its just that protoss encompasses that the best.
Its only in the late game that unit control even comes into play, managing multiple groups and fronts and microing spell casters, since the early game is so volatile it often doesnt come down to skill. in the early game, the units are limited by what you can do so even lower level players can beat highly skilled players, If the late game is reached at an even point though, thats when skill really shines (byun vs zenio, jinro vs ensnare LT TvT).
|
On March 17 2011 09:32 infinity2k9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 09:22 Rashid wrote:I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed. He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on outplaying your opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually. 99% of people who bought and play Starcraft 2 didn't play it because they think they can be the best in the world. They bought it because it's the sequel to one of the best RTS games ever made, the game that they played when they were kids, and hoping to have tons of fun with the game with out having any old-skool elitism get in the way. He also says there's exceptions in Basketball sometimes but generally height and physical advantage is important, did you just skim through it or read it properly? You just go on repeat the exact thing that is refuted in his posts. There isn't much depth in 'strategy, wits, deception' in Starcraft 1 or 2. There's no room for constant innovation, most players will be using a known build or at least a refined version of it until everyone copies. The game you are looking for if you want those things is just not Starcraft. Now and then we get some great strategical play which surprises everyone but how can that happen very often when theres hundreds of thousands of games played every day? Now you just added an extra paragraph which basically makes the rest pointless. We're talking about eSports not 99% of the people who bought the game. If they can't do the advanced mechanics why would it even matter? Thats why theres matchmaking. Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 09:27 PJA wrote:On March 17 2011 08:18 infinity2k9 wrote:On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote:
If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game. Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made? If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win? People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR. Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics. The guy wasn't saying slightly less skill; He was saying if he builds the counter he should win. No mention of execution in there or being only slightly less mechanically skilled. As people are constantly saying its a balance between the two.
And i read it, and i also say strategy is an important part too. It's useless to have a team of Shaqs if each of them are idiots who like to hog the ball and go for three pointers each time. And the reason there isn't 'depth in strategy, wits, and deception' in Starcraft 2 was because it was made that way, because even after more than a decade, the old-skool elitism mentality among hardcore RTS gamers still exist that refuses to accept that games change. In truth a game that focuses more on strategy instead of frantic clicking not only has more depth, it's a whole lot more fun to play and also a whole lot more fun to watch. Chess games have a lot more depth than DDR or O2Jam.
|
On March 17 2011 09:53 Rashid wrote:
And i read it, and i also say strategy is an important part too. It's useless to have a team of Shaqs if each of them are idiots who like to hog the ball and go for three pointers each time. And the reason there isn't 'depth in strategy, wits, and deception' in Starcraft 2 was because it was made that way, because even after more than a decade, the old-skool elitism mentality still exist that refuses to accept that games change. In truth a game that focuses more on strategy instead of frantic clicking not only has more depth, it's a whole lot more fun to play and also a whole lot more fun to watch. Chess games has a lot more depth than DDR or O2Jam.
SC2 has strategic depth, you simply need to have the mechanics to support it.
What is the problem with this?
|
On March 17 2011 09:54 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 09:53 Rashid wrote:
And i read it, and i also say strategy is an important part too. It's useless to have a team of Shaqs if each of them are idiots who like to hog the ball and go for three pointers each time. And the reason there isn't 'depth in strategy, wits, and deception' in Starcraft 2 was because it was made that way, because even after more than a decade, the old-skool elitism mentality still exist that refuses to accept that games change. In truth a game that focuses more on strategy instead of frantic clicking not only has more depth, it's a whole lot more fun to play and also a whole lot more fun to watch. Chess games has a lot more depth than DDR or O2Jam. SC2 has strategic depth, you simply need to have the mechanics to support it. What is the problem with this?
The problem is the game focuses more on mechanics instead of strategy.
|
On March 17 2011 09:55 Rashid wrote:
The problem is the game focuses more on mechanics instead of strategy.
You state that as if it's a fact. Could you exemplify?
|
I'm sick and tired of this debate. This is the exact same debate we had with Warcraft III. We didn't have it with Brood War because the original builds of Starcraft were originally criticized for being too much like Warcraft II instead of moving forward. We had it with Warcraft III because it took the Blizzard strategy game in a completely different direction and Starcraft was pretty much on its way to video game God status. "Warcraft III doesn't require any skill! Look at the level of play! There's not that much micromanagement! What is this autocast mechanic? What a fucking noob mechanic." And then after all the Brood War players decried Warcraft III as a "noob game" and Warcraft III got a couple of years for the talent and skill level of the player base to flourish (with quite a bit of help from The Frozen Throne), Warcraft III turned into some kind of beast that required the ridiculous micromanagement skills that Brood War players now laud and respect; ridiculous micromanagement skills that bred KiWiKaKi into one of the best micromanaging Westerners out there. I figured we were going to be done with these debates and we had built the body of knowledge to avoid them, but apparently, we haven't.
We have absolutely no way of knowing whether the game is responsible for any volatility or the relatively low player skill (and yes, it will be considered "low player skill" when we're in the year 2015 and 2016 and looking back at the silly strategies we played) because no competitive real-time strategy game has ever been subjected to this kind of scrutiny this early in its life cycle; by either professional players or the thousands upon thousands of fans who watch livestreams and commentaries to see the state of the Starcraft II food chain. People have been playing tournaments since the beta. And over that time, the power structure has shifted from Protoss/Zerg to Terran to Zerg to Terran to Protoss and so forth. All of this in roughly twelve months of play. That is, "the best players thought Protoss and Zerg were the best" followed by "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Zerg was the best" to "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Protoss was the best". Some of those shifts in power came with some pretty substantial balance changes. A lot of them did not. It came with people unveiling new strategies and getting better at the various skills required to go to war with new units and new abilities and a new interface.
It's easier to mount a winning mid-game push than it was in Brood War. That much isn't debatable. There's a very good chance that players are having tough time scouting mid-game pushes because the scouting mechanics aren't good enough. That's also very possible. But we can't just conclude the scouting isn't doable and we need Blizzard to bail us out. The Brood War player base spent too much time complaining that "Starcraft II is too easy" to now begin going out of their way to say one of its most critical skills is too hard. And the Brood War player base, quite frankly, is still playing Starcraft II like it's Brood War. People don't have their head around this game like they had their head around the previous game. Nobody's gotten a spectacular eye for tiny, minute nuances that give away playstyles. Nobody's gotten an eye for the things that are dead give-aways for the Wraith rushes and Dark Templar rushes that were also a part of Brood War. People don't know how to counter the action that kills the scout. People don't know how to counter the action that counters the action. At least not as well as they'd think. Do you know how many commentaries I watch featuring high-level players that are playing absolutely blind instead of fighting like death for watch towers and using that "Brood War micro" to ballhawk any unit that walks down the ramp? Do you know how many commentaries I see "winning moves" that could be incorporated into general play? (And no, I am not claiming I am better than everyone here. Do not claim I am saying that. And please don't invoke the League card. Because as far as I can tell, I'm one of the few people here who isn't making excuses. You invoke the League card when a poor player is saying a strategy can't be beat or the game is too hard. I'm not doing that.) It took how many months for Terran players to begin dabbling in Mech builds against Protoss? That's why players are not familiar with the various strategies and "one build is countering another". In several years, players will be able to do it just like they're capable of doing it in Warcraft III and Brood War. This stuff takes a long time to figure out. It took about four years for Warcraft III to go from a game of Demon Hunters and Huntresses and Mass Casters into a game where everybody is pissing their pants when they see how Moon won his latest game. It took about four years for Starcraft to transform from a game of Six-Pools into Boxer and his Terran arsenal. A lot of that had to do with balance changes and tweaks and new map design. The other portion was the result of increasing player skill. It will take years for people to get their heads around this game and determine whether or not it can hold up to scrutiny. It took years for Brood War to do that and it took years for Warcraft III to do that. "I played 12 years of Brood War and eight months of Starcraft II!" does not change that.
I don't normally invoke the "go play game X and stop whining about game Y", but this seems like a really good time to do it. You've had an entire year to think about whether you enjoy this game. If you do not think it is any good, you have the best real-time strategy game of all-time to comfortably fall back upon. Please do it. I don't come on this forum every week and bitch about how Starcraft II games are a massive downgrade from Warcraft III because the most passionate portions of the Brood War community busted out the pitchforks and torches when Blizzard wanted to make any minor change to the formula, a formula that is absolutely horrible for team games. I go play Warcraft III and I enjoy the hell out of it. I don't come on this forum and bitch about the state of gameplay balance because I know the "state of gameplay balance" is driven by the rapidly improving skill level of the player base and not the game itself. At least when people complained about Warcraft III, they went back to Brood War and stopped complaining about Warcraft III. What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set. You guys are too talented at these games to keep spending month after month after month claiming every situation is hopeless.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 17 2011 09:59 MichaelJLowell wrote:
I'm sick and tired of this debate. This is the exact same debate we had with Warcraft III. We didn't have it with Brood War because the original builds of Starcraft were originally criticized for being too much like Warcraft II instead of moving forward. We had it with Warcraft III because it took the Blizzard strategy game in a completely different direction and Starcraft was pretty much on its way to video game God status. "Warcraft III doesn't require any skill! Look at the level of play! There's not that much micromanagement! What is this autocast mechanic? What a fucking noob mechanic." And then after all the Brood War players decried Warcraft III as a "noob game" and Warcraft III got a couple of years for the talent and skill level of the player base to flourish (with quite a bit of help from The Frozen Throne), Warcraft III turned into some kind of beast that required the ridiculous micromanagement skills that Brood War players now laud and respect; ridiculous micromanagement skills that bred KiWiKaKi into one of the best micromanaging Westerners out there. I figured we were going to be done with these debates and we had built the body of knowledge to avoid them, but apparently, we haven't.
We have absolutely no way of knowing whether the game is responsible for any volatility or the relatively low player skill (and yes, it will be considered "low player skill" when we're in the year 2015 and 2016 and looking back at the silly strategies we played) because no competitive real-time strategy game has ever been subjected to this kind of scrutiny this early in its life cycle; by either professional players or the thousands upon thousands of fans who watch livestreams and commentaries to see the state of the Starcraft II food chain. People have been playing tournaments since the beta. And over that time, the power structure has shifted from Protoss/Zerg to Terran to Zerg to Terran to Protoss and so forth. All of this in roughly twelve months of play. That is, "the best players thought Protoss and Zerg were the best" followed by "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Zerg was the best" to "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Protoss was the best". Some of those shifts in power came with some pretty substantial balance changes. A lot of them did not. It came with people unveiling new strategies and getting better at the various skills required to go to war with new units and new abilities and a new interface.
It's easier to mount a winning mid-game push than it was in Brood War. That much isn't debatable. There's a very good chance that players are having tough time scouting mid-game pushes because the scouting mechanics aren't good enough. That's also very possible. But we can't just conclude the scouting isn't doable and we need Blizzard to bail us out. The Brood War player base spent too much time complaining that "Starcraft II is too easy" to now begin going out of their way to say one of its most critical skills is too hard. And the Brood War player base, quite frankly, is still playing Starcraft II like it's Brood War. People don't have their head around this game like they had their head around the previous game. Nobody's gotten a spectacular eye for tiny, minute nuances that give away playstyles. Nobody's gotten an eye for the things that are dead give-aways for the Wraith rushes and Dark Templar rushes that were also a part of Brood War. People don't know how to counter the action that kills the scout. People don't know how to counter the action that counters the action. At least not as well as they'd think. Do you know how many commentaries featuring high-level players where people are playing absolutely blind instead of fighting like death for watch towers and using that "Brood War micro" to ballhawk any unit that walks down the ramp? Do you know how many commentaries where I see "winning moves" that could be incorporated into general play? (And no, I am not claiming I am better than everyone here. Do not claim I am saying that. And please don't invoke the League card. Because as far as I can tell, I'm one of the few people here who isn't making excuses. You invoke the League card when a poor player is saying a strategy can't be beat or the game is too hard. I'm not doing that.) It took how many months for Terran players to begin regularly playing Mech builds against Protoss? That's why players are not familiar with the various strategies and "one build is countering another". In several years, players will be able to do it just like they're capable of doing it in Warcraft III and Brood War. This stuff takes a long time to figure out. It took about four years for Warcraft III to go from a game of Demon Hunters and Huntresses and Mass Casters into a game where everybody is pissing their pants when they see how Moon won his latest game. It took about four years for Starcraft to transform from a game of Six-Pools into Boxer and his Terran arsenal. A lot of that had to do with balance changes and tweaks and new map design. The other portion was the result of increasing player skill. It will take years for people to get their heads around this game and determine whether or not it can hold up to scrutiny. It took years for Brood War to do that and it took years for Warcraft III to do that. "I played 12 years of Brood War and eight months of Starcraft II!" does not change that.
I don't normally invoke the "go play game X and stop whining about game Y", but this seems like a really good time to do it. You've had an entire year to think about whether you enjoy this game. If you do not think it is any good, you have the best real-time strategy game of all-time to comfortably fall back upon. Please do it. I don't come on this forum every week and bitch about how Starcraft II games are a massive downgrade from Warcraft III because the most passionate portions of the Brood War community busted out the pitchforks and torches when Blizzard wanted to make any minor change to the formula, a formula that is absolutely horrible for team games. I go play Warcraft III and I enjoy the hell out of it. I don't come on this forum and bitch about the state of gameplay balance because I know the "state of gameplay balance" is driven by the rapidly improving skill level of the player base and not the game itself. At least when people complained about Warcraft III, they went back to Brood War and stopped complaining about Warcraft III. What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set. You guys are too talented at these games to keep spending month after month after month claiming every situation is hopeless.
I don't actually know anything about WC3, but I have never met or talked to a BW player who respected it so it might be flawed for you to say that BW players thought it was very respectable. I actually was under the impression they had more aversion to it than SC2.
|
On March 17 2011 10:02 etheovermind wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 17 2011 09:59 MichaelJLowell wrote:
I'm sick and tired of this debate. This is the exact same debate we had with Warcraft III. We didn't have it with Brood War because the original builds of Starcraft were originally criticized for being too much like Warcraft II instead of moving forward. We had it with Warcraft III because it took the Blizzard strategy game in a completely different direction and Starcraft was pretty much on its way to video game God status. "Warcraft III doesn't require any skill! Look at the level of play! There's not that much micromanagement! What is this autocast mechanic? What a fucking noob mechanic." And then after all the Brood War players decried Warcraft III as a "noob game" and Warcraft III got a couple of years for the talent and skill level of the player base to flourish (with quite a bit of help from The Frozen Throne), Warcraft III turned into some kind of beast that required the ridiculous micromanagement skills that Brood War players now laud and respect; ridiculous micromanagement skills that bred KiWiKaKi into one of the best micromanaging Westerners out there. I figured we were going to be done with these debates and we had built the body of knowledge to avoid them, but apparently, we haven't.
We have absolutely no way of knowing whether the game is responsible for any volatility or the relatively low player skill (and yes, it will be considered "low player skill" when we're in the year 2015 and 2016 and looking back at the silly strategies we played) because no competitive real-time strategy game has ever been subjected to this kind of scrutiny this early in its life cycle; by either professional players or the thousands upon thousands of fans who watch livestreams and commentaries to see the state of the Starcraft II food chain. People have been playing tournaments since the beta. And over that time, the power structure has shifted from Protoss/Zerg to Terran to Zerg to Terran to Protoss and so forth. All of this in roughly twelve months of play. That is, "the best players thought Protoss and Zerg were the best" followed by "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Zerg was the best" to "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Protoss was the best". Some of those shifts in power came with some pretty substantial balance changes. A lot of them did not. It came with people unveiling new strategies and getting better at the various skills required to go to war with new units and new abilities and a new interface.
It's easier to mount a winning mid-game push than it was in Brood War. That much isn't debatable. There's a very good chance that players are having tough time scouting mid-game pushes because the scouting mechanics aren't good enough. That's also very possible. But we can't just conclude the scouting isn't doable and we need Blizzard to bail us out. The Brood War player base spent too much time complaining that "Starcraft II is too easy" to now begin going out of their way to say one of its most critical skills is too hard. And the Brood War player base, quite frankly, is still playing Starcraft II like it's Brood War. People don't have their head around this game like they had their head around the previous game. Nobody's gotten a spectacular eye for tiny, minute nuances that give away playstyles. Nobody's gotten an eye for the things that are dead give-aways for the Wraith rushes and Dark Templar rushes that were also a part of Brood War. People don't know how to counter the action that kills the scout. People don't know how to counter the action that counters the action. At least not as well as they'd think. Do you know how many commentaries featuring high-level players where people are playing absolutely blind instead of fighting like death for watch towers and using that "Brood War micro" to ballhawk any unit that walks down the ramp? Do you know how many commentaries where I see "winning moves" that could be incorporated into general play? (And no, I am not claiming I am better than everyone here. Do not claim I am saying that. And please don't invoke the League card. Because as far as I can tell, I'm one of the few people here who isn't making excuses. You invoke the League card when a poor player is saying a strategy can't be beat or the game is too hard. I'm not doing that.) It took how many months for Terran players to begin regularly playing Mech builds against Protoss? That's why players are not familiar with the various strategies and "one build is countering another". In several years, players will be able to do it just like they're capable of doing it in Warcraft III and Brood War. This stuff takes a long time to figure out. It took about four years for Warcraft III to go from a game of Demon Hunters and Huntresses and Mass Casters into a game where everybody is pissing their pants when they see how Moon won his latest game. It took about four years for Starcraft to transform from a game of Six-Pools into Boxer and his Terran arsenal. A lot of that had to do with balance changes and tweaks and new map design. The other portion was the result of increasing player skill. It will take years for people to get their heads around this game and determine whether or not it can hold up to scrutiny. It took years for Brood War to do that and it took years for Warcraft III to do that. "I played 12 years of Brood War and eight months of Starcraft II!" does not change that.
I don't normally invoke the "go play game X and stop whining about game Y", but this seems like a really good time to do it. You've had an entire year to think about whether you enjoy this game. If you do not think it is any good, you have the best real-time strategy game of all-time to comfortably fall back upon. Please do it. I don't come on this forum every week and bitch about how Starcraft II games are a massive downgrade from Warcraft III because the most passionate portions of the Brood War community busted out the pitchforks and torches when Blizzard wanted to make any minor change to the formula, a formula that is absolutely horrible for team games. I go play Warcraft III and I enjoy the hell out of it. I don't come on this forum and bitch about the state of gameplay balance because I know the "state of gameplay balance" is driven by the rapidly improving skill level of the player base and not the game itself. At least when people complained about Warcraft III, they went back to Brood War and stopped complaining about Warcraft III. What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set. You guys are too talented at these games to keep spending month after month after month claiming every situation is hopeless. I don't actually know anything about WC3, but I have never met or talked to a BW player who respected it so it might be flawed for you to say that BW players thought it was very respectable. I actually was under the impression they had more aversion to it than SC2.
It's been a very slow acceptance. Either that, or TeamLiquid just banned the hell out of anyone who irrationally spoke ill of Warcraft III. o.o
|
Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
|
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote:
Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up
chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre
starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
