This has the potential to start a flame war, but lets keep it civil. Please keep discussion about the items discussed in this blog.
The tl;dr is under "conclusion"
Introduction Starcraft 2 gave us three new mechanics that drastically changed the game we know: multiple building selection (MBS), unlimited control groups, and smart casting. It is my sentiment that these fundamentally make the viewing experience more shallow, especially for insightful observers (allow me to be self-serving here).
I am not going to discuss each mechanic one by one, or even discuss the mechanic at all. I am only going to address them effect by effect by describing the dynamics from Brood War that these mechanics have removed.
Exponential Difficulty The first dynamic is regarding the pacing and skill level (I am not asserting that either game is superior because of skill level). In BW, the mechanical difficulty increases exponentially with the scale of the game. For example, running a 3 base economy is about 1.5-2 times harder than running a 2 base economy. To constantly produce workers, you need to use a different control group for each building, and manually highlight each worker at each base and send it to mine. As the number of bases increase, this is very taxing on your APM and concentration.
This is compounded by the fact that you cannot select multiple buildings. Having seven production structures (typical of 2-base protoss) is about 3 times harder than having three production structures. You cannot use hotkeys, and you need to direct your screen to your buildings, and click each individual building.
Similarly, controlling a large army is much harder than controlling a small one. The more units you have, the more control groups you require. Because of terrible pathing, the units bump into each other more, and require more individual micro.
So its easy to see how the mechanical demand of a Brood War game increases exponentially with the length of the game, typically speaking. If two players are very good, they probably can micro and macro perfectly off 2 bases, and enter the mid-late game completely even. However, when it comes time to add that third base, discrepancies of skill are more readily apparent, and the players up the ante until one of the players begins to crack under the pressure. This is not the way all BW games are played, but when pro players discuss "straight-up macro games," this is what they usually refer to. Of course, other things factor into one player winning or losing, but this is only to point out that the game gets harder with time. I believe that it is fair to say that usually, the longer the game, the more evenly matched these players are in technical skill.
When you watch a player take a macro win off 4 bases, you know he really deserved it. You know that having 4 bases is not an easy thing to do (maybe ten times harder than one base), and his opponent was unable to match his mechanics.
In SC2, the demand is almost consistent. Having 5 bases is as easy as having 2. Controlling a 200/200 army is pretty much just as easy as controlling a small one. Before you retort, I have still not yet addressed the complaint that I have with SC2.
Influence of Micro The second mechanic I would like to address is how units scale with micro. At all phases of the game, there are opportunities for players to maximize the potency of their units by microing effectively. In 200/200 confrontations or tiny FD pushes, a player can turn the tides with micro. At any moment in a battle, there is always something more to be doing to maximize your chance to win.
I would like to address specifically High Templar vs a low-econ hydra all-in. Storm was incredibly powerful in BW; it would melt armies of hydras almost instantly. However, you were forced to cast storms one by one (more or less). This was also balanced by the fact that Hydras could dodge storm. There was a casting animation, and hydras were much faster then. So in a fight between mass hydras (which were extremely effective against gateway units) and a protoss army, the victor in this situation was always the one who came ahead in the struggle between storm and dodging. The outcome of the game was dependent on not only macro, but both player's ability to micro efficiently. Huge deficits in macro on either side could be made up with micro.
Compare this to SC2. In many FPVODs, when the player you're watching enters a battle, often they are just watching. Occasionally they will focus fire, or reposition, but micro will never have the influence that it did in BW. It is pretty easy to blanket an army with smart-casted storm, and dodging is just as easy. It is very easy to micro units to their maximum efficiency; it is rare to have superior micro turn the tides of a game.
Conclusion: What is my beef? In Brood War, there are more instances to compare your skill to your opponent's. If you were even at one base, fine. Try two bases; see how you match up. Try battling with larger armies; see who comes out on top.
In Starcraft 2, the skills I describe above are much less important. The elements of decision making, overall strategy, and unit composition become the focal point of the game. While some people think that this is a move in the right direction, I am not so sure. Starcraft 2 games are decided so much earlier than Brood War games. A player can take an early lead, and ride it out through the entire game for the win. In Brood War, there were so many other factors that allowed a losing player to edge back into the game. As a spectator, it is undeniably cool that there are so many things to balance, and that a win is always within someone's grasp.
I am saddened that in SC2, there seems to be less opportunities to compare skills. There are usually less than 3 events that result in the win or loss. Brood war games measured skill up until the last moment. In SC2, games are measured over a handful of instances: an expansion timing, a timing attack, or a large 200/200 battle.
It is my hope that the expansion packs and developments in the metagame will deepen the level of decision-making, unit compositions, and strategies, so that we can really measure a player's skill.
Here is a great game between two very well known players. I believe that you can see how all the elements that I mention above allow for an incredibly entertaining game. It is my hope that Starcraft 2 will reach this level of fluidity in the future.
I just read the intro and conclusion, but it seems like you're just elaborating points that have already been stated over and over. Interesting choice of VOD though.
On February 10 2011 02:15 gods_basement wrote:In SC2, the demand is almost linear. Having 5 bases is almost as easy as having 2. Controlling a 200/200 army is pretty much just as easy as controlling a small one.
A linear growth rate in difficulty as a function of the number of bases controlled would not mean that having 5 bases is almost as easy as having 2. It would mean that the increase in difficulty when going from 2 bases to 3 would be the same as the increase in difficulty when going from 3 bases to 4, or 4 to 5. Assuming a linear growth and that 0 bases has a difficulty value of 0, 5 bases would in fact be 250% as difficult as 2, not "almost as easy" by a long shot.
While I agree with your general drift of your points, regarding your exponential difficulty section: I think you mean that the mechanical difficulty in managing bases in BroodWar is linear in terms of APM whereas in Starcraft 2 it remains roughly constant. The number of actions you do with 3 bases is 3 times more than the actions you would do with 1 base in BW; in SC2 it's about the same if you hotkey your town halls on 1 control group. Anyways, the whole argument is kind of a moot point at this time, as until they release an expansion the patch history suggests WoL's core gameplay will remain the same.
I chose it mainly because the lead changes hands a couple times in that game, and my ultimate hero Nony takes the game hehe. The tl;dr is the conclusion.
the reason i wrote this is to say that sc2 games are won in instances, as opposed to over the course of the game. Maybe after my class i'll edit it down to the important points.
On February 10 2011 02:15 gods_basement wrote:In SC2, the demand is almost linear. Having 5 bases is almost as easy as having 2. Controlling a 200/200 army is pretty much just as easy as controlling a small one.
A linear growth rate in difficulty as a function of the number of bases controlled would not mean that having 5 bases is almost as easy as having 2. It would mean that the increase in difficulty when going from 2 bases to 3 would be the same as the increase in difficulty when going from 3 bases to 4, or 4 to 5. Assuming a linear growth and that 0 bases has a difficulty value of 0, 5 bases would in fact be 250% as difficult as 2, not "almost as easy" by a long shot.
I never said that it had to intersect the zero, and there really isn't such thing as macroing off 0 bases.
On February 10 2011 02:37 Trap wrote: While I agree with your general drift of your points, regarding your exponential difficulty section: I think you mean that the mechanical difficulty in managing bases in BroodWar is linear in terms of APM whereas in Starcraft 2 it remains roughly constant. The number of actions you do with 3 bases is 3 times more than the actions you would do with 1 base in BW; in SC2 it's about the same if you hotkey your town halls on 1 control group. Anyways, the whole argument is kind of a moot point at this time, as until they release an expansion the patch history suggests WoL's core gameplay will remain the same.
Thanks for the word consistent, i changed it in the OP. :D
to address your comment about how number of actions are the same and therefore the increase of difficulty is the same, allow me to explain.
In sc2, every once in a while you press 4 eee. Its almost an afterthought, and you're done. in starcraft: BW, you press 0p9p8p, to build probes, then 00 drag click 99 drag click 88 drag click.
If you do not, you are punished by being down 3-10 probes from your opponent. This is not necessarily better, but it is an instance where one skill influences the outcome of the game. The player who has better multitasking and management will have a better economy.
i am reminded of this video by hotbid:
but the point is that multiple skills change the game.
I read through your post- It was well thought out, and quite excellent. If you are a long time BW player all of you points come to you quite obviously. However most players are playing SC2 as thier first RTS and don't know or understand BW. I agree with everything you have said because I have experienced it first had. Any nay Sayers are simply sc2 players that only 'think' they understand BW.
On February 10 2011 02:15 gods_basement wrote:In SC2, the demand is almost linear. Having 5 bases is almost as easy as having 2. Controlling a 200/200 army is pretty much just as easy as controlling a small one.
A linear growth rate in difficulty as a function of the number of bases controlled would not mean that having 5 bases is almost as easy as having 2. It would mean that the increase in difficulty when going from 2 bases to 3 would be the same as the increase in difficulty when going from 3 bases to 4, or 4 to 5. Assuming a linear growth and that 0 bases has a difficulty value of 0, 5 bases would in fact be 250% as difficult as 2, not "almost as easy" by a long shot.
I never said that it had to intersect the zero, and there really isn't such thing as macroing off 0 bases.
Sure there is, i'm doing it right now and i'd rate the difficulty as 0. Maybe you'd like to specify a domain for which the difficulty is a linear function of bases? [1,infinity)?
As much as I would love to support your arguments against SC2, there is a lack of hard evidence.
Quite a few of your arguments are objective, and are openly debatable - "Running 3 base economy is about 1.5-2 times harder than running a two base economy" One could argue that running a three base economy is only marginally harder than a two base economy. And neither side could say thing about it other than personal experience, which varies from player to player. - "The more units you have the more control groups you require" Again, this is debatable. Looking at some high level replays from players like Jaedong, as the game progresses into late game macro-mode there is less control group selection and more click-box microing. - "However, when it comes time to add that third base, discrepancies of skill are more readily apparent, and the players up the ante until one of the players begins to crack under the pressure." This is extremely objective, I personally believe that managing a fourth or fifth base to be hardest. - "The outcome of the game was dependent on not only macro, but both player's ability to micro efficiently. Huge deficits in macro on either side could be made up with micro. " This is very untrue. You can never make up for huge deficits in macro, albeit in a very luck situation where you catch your opponent completely off guard. Simply put, there is a stage where microing requires too much attention for too little result, and if you're more than slightly outnumbered, it's not worth it. As wonderful as it sounds for two vultures to take out an infinite number of zerglings, there are better uses for your time and concentration.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like SC2, and I agree with many of your points, but your argument does have some holes in it.
I would also like to offer my opinion that micro is not the entirety of the game. I would go as far as to say micro is the least important aspect of playing BW well (the other two aspects being macro, and decision-making capacity) Large areas of the game are shared by both BW and SC2 such as decision making, strategizing, and awareness.
On February 10 2011 04:01 Infested_Noodle wrote: As much as I would love to support your arguments against SC2, there is a lack of hard evidence.
Quite a few of your arguments are objective, and are openly debatable - "Running 3 base economy is about 1.5-2 times harder than running a two base economy" One could argue that running a three base economy is only marginally harder than a two base economy. And neither side could say thing about it other than personal experience, which varies from player to player. - "The more units you have the more control groups you require" Again, this is debatable. Looking at some high level replays from players like Jaedong, as the game progresses into late game macro-mode there is less control group selection and more click-box microing. - "However, when it comes time to add that third base, discrepancies of skill are more readily apparent, and the players up the ante until one of the players begins to crack under the pressure." This is extremely objective, I personally believe that managing a fourth or fifth base to be hardest. - "The outcome of the game was dependent on not only macro, but both player's ability to micro efficiently. Huge deficits in macro on either side could be made up with micro. " This is very untrue. You can never make up for huge deficits in macro, albeit in a very luck situation where you catch your opponent completely off guard. Simply put, there is a stage where microing requires too much attention for too little result, and if you're more than slightly outnumbered, it's not worth it. As wonderful as it sounds for two vultures to take out an infinite number of zerglings, there are better uses for your time and concentration.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like SC2, and I agree with many of your points, but your argument does have some holes in it.
I would also like to offer my opinion that micro is not the entirety of the game. I would go as far as to say micro is the least important aspect of playing BW well (the other two aspects being macro, and decision-making capacity) Large areas of the game are shared by both BW and SC2 such as decision making, strategizing, and awareness.
Well written post though, I enjoyed it.
Well, you managed to decompose my premises while missing the main point. the game gets harder with time, so the longer the game goes, the more "space" there is for differences in skill to compare to eachother. in sc2, the space stays the same size. because of this, there are rarely huge comebacks without huge blunders.
As for your last point, i may have over exaggerated the severity of the macro deficit, but being 20-40 supply behind doesn't mean autoloss like it does in sc2, because your micro can make your units effective enough to beat a larger army. of course i did not mean to address infinite zerglings losing to 2 vultures.
I've read the whole thing and would recommend others read it too. I applaud you for being able to put into words the things I've also tried so hard to tell others who don't understand why I still prefer to play Broodwar to SC2.
On February 10 2011 02:15 gods_basement wrote: I am saddened that in SC2, there seems to be less opportunities to compare skills. There are usually less than 3 events that result in the win or loss. Brood war games measured skill up until the last moment. In SC2, games are measured over a handful of instances: an expansion timing, a timing attack, or a large 200/200 battle.
This is such a true statement. Some people I've played on ladder have had a BW background like me, and there was only a loose correlation between winning and losing based on the prior iccup ranking and skills that were critical in BW from scouting/map awareness to macro.
I don't mind the newer interface, since it lets me as a former D+ hold my own against former C and above players. What you said about the few instances in which to demonstrate RTS skills in SC2 compared to BW, with slight adjustments in expansion timing and mainly scouting and utlizing timing pushes. These few strategic decisions determine the game in SC2 while in BW, many of these factors add up to a single victory.
Frankly, as I mediocre SC BW player and a forever Masters/Diamond on SC2 while playing thoroughly mediocrly... I can agree BW has a higher apparent skill cap currently. But I am just waiting and I think that we will see marked improvements in the SC2 populace before too long.
Macro was about mechanics before, now its about mindfulness, it makes it easier, for better or worse.
On February 10 2011 09:05 Sleight wrote: Frankly, as I mediocre SC BW player and a forever Masters/Diamond on SC2 while playing thoroughly mediocrly... I can agree BW has a higher apparent skill cap currently. But I am just waiting and I think that we will see marked improvements in the SC2 populace before too long.
Macro was about mechanics before, now its about mindfulness, it makes it easier, for better or worse.
Cheers.
I don't think it's quite fair to say that mindfulness isn't required in BW. BW macro will require the same amount of mindfulness just added mechanics.
As someone who didn't really play BW prior to SC2, I'd have to say watching that game you can really tell BW takes a lot more skill...not to mention the clumsiness of the AI and CTRL group limitations made it a lot more in-depth than SC2. That being said, I think while SC2 is a different beast all of it's own will get better with time.
After playing SC2 for so long I (and wouldn't b surprised if a few other players too) completely forgot about things like having to manually select workers to mine. Seeing idle workers made me go woah. This aspect alone, combined with a lack of mbs to macro out of gateways makes the game just so much harder to play and even more so when remembering the clumsy a.i that existed in SC1. Its exactly for these reasons that SC2 will not feel like SC1.
But the day will come when the smallest micro moves become noticed to break out a win, decision making becomes more refined and strategies based more on the long term than the short term. One factor is certainly the map pool which is changing and making the game more BW like through the removal of garbage maps like steppes of war, blistering sands, etc.
I'm going to be honest, I've never physically played BW, but I have watched a crap ton of it. And I disagree that the higher mechanical skill makes it better to watch, or somehow more compelling, or even skillful. I don't think the massive APM requirements were a good thing, except for physical unit micro. Seeing a guy actually physically have to build workers and make them mine at each base is not a plus imo. It's a mechanical barrier to being good at the game, but I argue that it isn't a compelling measure of skill, not does it make it funner to watch. YOU might like it better, but that's not a good test of a compelling game to watch. If you have to have played the game to understand how it works or appreciate the skill involved, that is NOT a good thing. I appreciated great unit micro even back when I didn't have either game. I appreciated great strategies, and amazing comebacks. Seeing the guy have to over manage his economy wasn't compelling then, and isn't compelling now. I understand it more, but don't agree that it is "better". It added, imo, an unnecessary physical barrier to being good at the game. If you didn't have 2-300 APM you could not physically compete at a high level. You could have the greatest strategies and tactics known to man, but it wouldn't matter, because you can only hit 120 APM vs their 300. And it's not compelling, or even particular skillfull APM most of the time. Sorry, but 8pp,9pp,0pp, box click select, etc, etc, every 20 seconds is not skillful or compelling, it's merely an APM cap that, imo raises the mechanical skill ceiling higher than it really needs to be.
SC2 has the full potential of being just as micro intensive, its just that, atm, noone is good enough to where the extra APM microing can make up forthe fact that their macro is slipping slightly. Right now, at this stage of SC2 development, superior macro trumps micro.
On February 10 2011 23:15 Sm3agol wrote: I'm going to be honest, I've never physically played BW, but I have watched a crap ton of it. And I disagree that the higher mechanical skill makes it better to watch, or somehow more compelling, or even skillful. I don't think the massive APM requirements were a good thing, except for physical unit micro. Seeing a guy actually physically have to build workers and make them mine at each base is not a plus imo. It's a mechanical barrier to being good at the game, but I argue that it isn't a compelling measure of skill, not does it make it funner to watch. YOU might like it better, but that's not a good test of a compelling game to watch. If you have to have played the game to understand how it works or appreciate the skill involved, that is NOT a good thing. I appreciated great unit micro even back when I didn't have either game. I appreciated great strategies, and amazing comebacks. Seeing the guy have to over manage his economy wasn't compelling then, and isn't compelling now. I understand it more, but don't agree that it is "better". It added, imo, an unnecessary physical barrier to being good at the game. If you didn't have 2-300 APM you could not physically compete at a high level. You could have the greatest strategies and tactics known to man, but it wouldn't matter, because you can only hit 120 APM vs their 300. And it's not compelling, or even particular skillfull APM most of the time. Sorry, but 8pp,9pp,0pp, box click select, etc, etc, every 20 seconds is not skillful or compelling, it's merely an APM cap that, imo raises the mechanical skill ceiling higher than it really needs to be.
SC2 has the full potential of being just as micro intensive, its just that, atm, noone is good enough to where the extra APM microing can make up forthe fact that their macro is slipping slightly. Right now, at this stage of SC2 development, superior macro trumps micro.
Yes, I agree there shouldn't be physical constraints in playing the game. I also hate that in order to play any sports, eg. basketball, I have to be tall and have to be able to jump really high. Watching some guy jump 5 feet in the air and dunking the basket is really not compelling to watch imo. Its adding, imo, an unnecessary physical barrier to being good at the game.
On February 10 2011 23:15 Sm3agol wrote: If you have to have played the game to understand how it works or appreciate the skill involved, that is NOT a good thing.
Except that that's how any activity works. If you're good at chess, you appreciate good plays much more than a bad player (who may not understand them at all). If you've played a musical instrument to a decent level, you appreciate the music more when you hear a professional playing. (As a specific example, non-pianists think that Fur Elise is amazing, but any decent pianist will tell you that that piece is actually trivial to play and not particularly impressive.) I've never played baseball so when I watch a game of professional baseball, I can't really appreciate all the skill involved. Sure I can imagine it's difficult to pitch a ball in the perfect spot or hit a ball going X miles an hour, but it's not really impressive to watch. Have you done any activity at a really high level? I don't think you'd be saying that if you had :/
On February 10 2011 23:15 Sm3agol wrote: SC2 has the full potential of being just as micro intensive, its just that, atm, noone is good enough to where the extra APM microing can make up forthe fact that their macro is slipping slightly. Right now, at this stage of SC2 development, superior macro trumps micro.
But even Day9 said something like 60-80 APM would be enough to perform all the necessary actions required in a game of SC2, and Ret said on the recent State of the Game that he feels that mechanically, he has nothing left to improve in SC2 which is why it doesn't really matter if he leaves Korea.
On February 10 2011 23:15 Sm3agol wrote: I'm going to be honest, I've never physically played BW, but I have watched a crap ton of it. And I disagree that the higher mechanical skill makes it better to watch, or somehow more compelling, or even skillful. I don't think the massive APM requirements were a good thing, except for physical unit micro. Seeing a guy actually physically have to build workers and make them mine at each base is not a plus imo. It's a mechanical barrier to being good at the game, but I argue that it isn't a compelling measure of skill, not does it make it funner to watch. YOU might like it better, but that's not a good test of a compelling game to watch. If you have to have played the game to understand how it works or appreciate the skill involved, that is NOT a good thing. I appreciated great unit micro even back when I didn't have either game. I appreciated great strategies, and amazing comebacks. Seeing the guy have to over manage his economy wasn't compelling then, and isn't compelling now. I understand it more, but don't agree that it is "better". It added, imo, an unnecessary physical barrier to being good at the game. If you didn't have 2-300 APM you could not physically compete at a high level. You could have the greatest strategies and tactics known to man, but it wouldn't matter, because you can only hit 120 APM vs their 300. And it's not compelling, or even particular skillfull APM most of the time. Sorry, but 8pp,9pp,0pp, box click select, etc, etc, every 20 seconds is not skillful or compelling, it's merely an APM cap that, imo raises the mechanical skill ceiling higher than it really needs to be.
SC2 has the full potential of being just as micro intensive, its just that, atm, noone is good enough to where the extra APM microing can make up forthe fact that their macro is slipping slightly. Right now, at this stage of SC2 development, superior macro trumps micro.
Yes, I agree there shouldn't be physical constraints in playing the game. I also hate that in order to play any sports, eg. basketball, I have to be tall and have to be able to jump really high. Watching some guy jump 5 feet in the air and dunking the basket is really not compelling to watch imo. Its adding, imo, an unnecessary physical barrier to being good at the game.
Slight difference there. Things like height are completely unchangeable. APM arguably is to some extent, the barrier is more of the useful effect than pure "can you spam it". ANYONE can spam 400 APM, I believe, it's just making it useful that people can't manage without multiple years of heavy practice. And I argue again, that's it's not useful or compelling APM. Building workers and making them mine is no fun to watch for anyone. But yet that action consumes a lot of a players APM. That's an artificial skill-ceiling, a skill ceiling soley for the sake of a skill-ceiling, and it doesn't make a game any more interesting for it being there.
On February 10 2011 23:15 Sm3agol wrote: If you have to have played the game to understand how it works or appreciate the skill involved, that is NOT a good thing.
Except that that's how any activity works. If you're good at chess, you appreciate good plays much more than a bad player (who may not understand them at all). If you've played a musical instrument to a decent level, you appreciate the music more when you hear a professional playing. (As a specific example, non-pianists think that Fur Elise is amazing, but any decent pianist will tell you that that piece is actually trivial to play and not particularly impressive.) I've never played baseball so when I watch a game of professional baseball, I can't really appreciate all the skill involved. Sure I can imagine it's difficult to pitch a ball in the perfect spot or hit a ball going X miles an hour, but it's not really impressive to watch. Have you done any activity at a really high level? I don't think you'd be saying that if you had :/
I actually play piano at a quite high level. And I understand that while playing Prokofiev is technically on a much higher level than, say, Bach, that doesn't mean people will like Prokofiev better. Or that Prokofiev is actually better than Bach. Nor does it mean that Prokofiev is more interesting to listen to. Mere technical excellence is not necessarily interesting or compelling, even for a professional.
On February 10 2011 23:15 Sm3agol wrote: SC2 has the full potential of being just as micro intensive, its just that, atm, noone is good enough to where the extra APM microing can make up forthe fact that their macro is slipping slightly. Right now, at this stage of SC2 development, superior macro trumps micro.
But even Day9 said something like 60-80 APM would be enough to perform all the necessary actions required in a game of SC2, and Ret said on the recent State of the Game that he feels that mechanically, he has nothing left to improve in SC2 which is why it doesn't really matter if he leaves Korea.
That's because that is where the game's current highest level is at, sadly. For crying aloud, something as simple a splitting your marines vs banelings only started getting used a few months ago, a full year or so into the game's development. And Day 9 was certainly not talking professionally. No decent pro has less than 100 APM. He meant for your average ladder user, you don't need high APM because you can still win games purely on macro right now. But that's hardly breaking news, 1 year into SC:BW's development, amazing micro wasn't happening, one base rushes were the norm.
EPT
