|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
Wasn't sure whether to put this in SC2 General or not, so I just made a blog about it which also has the big advantage that I do not need to put so much effort into my writeup. Also this kind of collides with the other big SC2 general topic, but I still wanted to get rid of my thoughts that just hit my mind! =)
Anyway, I'll hit the topic quite straight: I've played a LOT of SC2 - and thanks to TSL - now watched a lot of SC2 as well. Despite my earlier claims that SC2 is "bad to watch" which, to be fair was pretty much a bold statement without much explanation as for the why.
And I guess that's what I've found out for myself now. In fact SC2 isn't neccesarily bad to watch, but the only two "great players" (I'll give you a def of what great players are to me, later.) we have are mvp and MC. While both of those are fucking great, especially MC has a great personality, I doubt anyone can disagree with that because he's the kind of player that you either love or hate. There's no "in between". That makes up for a great climax shall he be facing another great personality. Unfortunately IMO MvP does not fit this description. Yeah he's the best Terran and all, but who the fuck is the Person behind those 3 letters? Quite sure nobody really knows a lot about him as a person. Even if we have a MvP vs MC, ya nice - probably the best SC2 we can get to watch right now BUT... would I be hyped about it? Well, to a certain degree, sure. But if I compare this to MSL Group D that's going on soon... LOL????????????? Even Bisu vs Sea gives me more goosebumps than that. And to be fair and square that is the least exciting matchup of the group. Double LOL.
SC2 simply lacks strong personalities. The biggest problem I see is creating new strong personalities in SC2. Will there ever be a Jaedong-esque revolution (if you don't think he did one, check out how ZvP in BW was played 4 years ago and laugh.) going on for Zerg in SC2? Might be, but even if it will probably be less amazing than what JD did. Why?
Because JD's "revolution" was based on so much personal SKILL that it just left people in awe. Sure, you can have 450 apm in SC2 and be really good - but you still would not be so much better than everyone else (playing Zerg) than a Jaedong is (or was, not sure bout that atm).
Why do people love Jaedong for example? Because he's fucking awesome and has tons and tons and tons of skill. He has played so many games that left you speechless just because of the things he could pull of that others couldn't.
Same could be applied to Flash and Bisu (even tho Bisu is liked for his looks too, lol), those two have just SHOWED how much better than everyone else they are - in EVERY aspect of a game that matters - sheer dextery that is their speed, decision making (aka game sense), precision, stamina, fighting spirit, multitasking ...
Now compare this to MvP or MC? Yes they're better than the rest. But it's close. Much too close if you consider how good those actually are. Yes, I know BW had a much longer time to grow those kind of players, but you need to keep in mind that going into SC2 we had lots, lots of former WC3 / BW Progamers going at this with the right mindset from the get go, we were in general approaching the game a lot more professional than anyone would've when BW came out. But seriously, while I like the fact that "we" can "beat" the Koreans in SC2... think of the flipside...
Like - sorry Aleks if you shall read this - see how MC (the best Protoss so far.) got almost beaten by White-Ra who hardly practices as much as other great players. While I do admit that White-Ra is a fucking genius and REALLY smart + experienced and I personally love to watch him (he's one of those personalities btw, old but gold, always nice etc.[IdrA is one too, just the opposite, lol]) - can you guys, atleast those of you who played BW seriously watch Ra win and say "ok now this is totally fair and deserved?".
Personally, while this might seem "elitish" or snobby or whatever, I cannot, because I know MC's (MBC_IrOn) mechanics from Broodwar - and if I compare those to White-Ra's, in my opinion, MC should be able to roflstop Ra only for those. Yes, I know SC2 is a new game, different game, there's "OTHER" things that matter. Well, not really. It's not other things that matter. It's just much much much LESS things that actually matter.
Macro itself could make you untouchable compared to a lesser player in BW, even if the lesser player would micro his heart out he could not beat the other guy simply because of the fact that one unit won't beat two no matter how hard it tries. Obviously this is also the case for SC2. Just that a fucking 5 year old can do the SC2 Macro. wzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. That's your protoss macro. 5zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. That's your Zerg macro. 5aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmm6mmmmmmmvvvvvvvv. That's your Terran macro.
Everyone can do this bullshit, really. Sure, a really good player will forget inject, boost, mule or whatever less often than a bad player, that still kind of makes a difference. Or does it? Mule's can be stacked (WTF blizzard???? What were you even thinking when you did this? Cooldown ability pls?), CB can be abused on gateways (+ you won't be making a lot of eco after 9 min into the game anymore as P anyway) and you can even stack larva so it doesn't matter if you forgot 2 injects during a fight if you didn't before...
Fact is, Blizzard tried to sell us those new macro mechancis a comparison to what we lost, but what we lost cannot be replaced. There's just too few "skillfactors" in this game. Without those, you will have less "heroes" in the game.
Personally, I don't know how you feel about this, but a game really needs those heroes. That's what still makes me all warm and fuzzy about watching BW, that's what gets my blood pumping, what excites me about it. Hell, I'm more pumped for MSL group D than for any recent SC2 tourney. That's a clash of gods going on right there.
And we don't even have a god in SC2 yet, even tho MC keeps claiming to be God Protoss, sorry, there won't ever be one. But he's as close to that as SC2 will allow him to.
I just pray that Blizzard will give us some more exciting to pull off in the add-ons. Because that's the biggest mistake they did so far. They made "awesome units" that awesomely kill other units etc blabla and thought that way it'll be exciting, in theory reapers, colos etc had a lot of excitement potential... in reality it's just not there because its fucking easy to actually do.
|
8716 Posts
i really think some gods can emerge! just wait some more time! 2 more years :D
|
2 more years until the iloveoov of SC2 shows up?
|
I generally agree with that it doesnt feel as epic yet, but im willing to wait a few years and see how it turns out, its just too hard to predict what the game will be like later with all the map changes leaning towards larger rush distances and more expensions etc, the game is changing very fast and i dont think you can speculate how it will end up.
|
SC and BW had very little "revolutions" coming when it first began, you have to start off with figuring out every unit's full potential. A revolution is not quite the "oh look a new build order that countered this old one". In my eyes a revolution is one that changes the entire match up/game ie: Julyzerg's muta micro.
This will emerge eventually but it will take a while like you said remember what Jaedong did 4 years ago or so? That took quite a while for that to materialize.
I know people hate this, but give it time.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 20 2011 06:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote: i really think some gods can emerge! just wait some more time! 2 more years :D Will it be you? =P And why would you need 2 years... don't chill so much! <3
|
there were no gods of BW until 2001-2002 ... Grrr was really big but he wasn't like a "god" , SC2 has been out <1 year now. Give it time :p
|
Yeah it's gonna take time, but I share your concern. I'm most worried that we haven't seen all that much in crazy tactical tricks that seem awesome. The 2 that I can think of recently would be Kas's (I think) Reaper that stayed alive all game and Sjow's uber banshees vs HuK, both were pretty exciting to see. I know it's been said ad nauseum, but we need more stuff like spider mines, in battle drop-play like you saw with reavers, or battles where you hold your breath as tanks siege up. I feel like it's when players win games using those tactics we elevate them to higher tiers in our minds. It's not even that it has to be super hard to do overall so long as there's the potential for someone to do it better than anyone else like MKP marine split.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 20 2011 06:05 Kralic wrote: SC and BW had very little "revolutions" coming when it first began, you have to start off with figuring out every unit's full potential. A revolution is not quite the "oh look a new build order that countered this old one". In my eyes a revolution is one that changes the entire match up/game ie: Julyzerg's muta micro.
This will emerge eventually but it will take a while like you said remember what Jaedong did 4 years ago or so? That took quite a while for that to materialize.
I know people hate this, but give it time. Actually you are so fucking right. I know that better than you might believe, a game needs time. It's like a good wine in that regard. The problem is, Blizzard is NOT giving SC2 time. Each 2 weeks there's a new fucking patch throwing the current balance off. No time for the players to evolve and maybe create solutions to the "imbalances" Instead Blizzard rather listens to random crying etc. And don't you forget there's still HotS and LotV to completely roll the balance dice again... Yes, it needs time. But before LotV is out we cannot even hope for that...
|
On April 20 2011 06:06 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 06:00 Liquid`Tyler wrote: i really think some gods can emerge! just wait some more time! 2 more years :D Will it be you? =P And why would you need 2 years... don't chill so much! <3
Because there can't be a revolution when there isn't any set in stone strategy that is "proven true by long periods of success" to revolt against.
|
iNfeRnaL the first SC2 bonwja
heard it here first folks
|
As I actually have not played any sc2, I have watched a few games from GSL/MLG, etc (live stream of course). Anyway, I find that I lose interest in some of the games after a while because of similar things infernal is mentioning, i.e. consistency. It seems like no matter how "good" you may be, someone will do some weird random scv all in ( I know this has been cut back a bit due to new maps, etc) and just win, then lose the proceeding game to X other random player. There are some very interesting and entertaining games produced from this game, but it still seems like there's no way to push the boundaries of the skill ceiling.
|
On April 20 2011 06:09 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 06:05 Kralic wrote: SC and BW had very little "revolutions" coming when it first began, you have to start off with figuring out every unit's full potential. A revolution is not quite the "oh look a new build order that countered this old one". In my eyes a revolution is one that changes the entire match up/game ie: Julyzerg's muta micro.
This will emerge eventually but it will take a while like you said remember what Jaedong did 4 years ago or so? That took quite a while for that to materialize.
I know people hate this, but give it time. Actually you are so fucking right. I know that better than you might believe, a game needs time. It's like a good wine in that regard. The problem is, Blizzard is NOT giving SC2 time. Each 2 weeks there's a new fucking patch throwing the current balance off. No time for the players to evolve and maybe create solutions to the "imbalances" Instead Blizzard rather listens to random crying etc. And don't you forget there's still HotS and LotV to completely roll the balance dice again... Yes, it needs time. But before LotV is out we cannot even hope for that...
Yes I will agree on the fact some of the snap balance changes Blizzard has been doing on some of the patches has not helped at all. Fazing was a pretty cool trick but was taken out really fast.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 20 2011 06:07 Xeris wrote: there were no gods of BW until 2001-2002 ... Grrr was really big but he wasn't like a "god" , SC2 has been out <1 year now. Give it time :p The difference is Grrr was a 80 apm newbie with no real mechanics that happened to have the strategical genius and micro that made him dominate his respective time. Edit: Not meaning to insult Grrr, the term "newb" is maybe a little offensive, but that's what he would now be with the mechanics he had back then. BW was started from the scratch. We had no pro teams, professional scene, weekly tournaments and people who already went into the game with years and years of practicing their dextery, speed and even had a professional mindset about the game. You can not compare the start of BW to the start of SC2. As a "leader" of the community (which you are in my opinion) you should know that, shouldn't you?
|
On April 20 2011 06:09 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 06:05 Kralic wrote: SC and BW had very little "revolutions" coming when it first began, you have to start off with figuring out every unit's full potential. A revolution is not quite the "oh look a new build order that countered this old one". In my eyes a revolution is one that changes the entire match up/game ie: Julyzerg's muta micro.
This will emerge eventually but it will take a while like you said remember what Jaedong did 4 years ago or so? That took quite a while for that to materialize.
I know people hate this, but give it time. Actually you are so fucking right. I know that better than you might believe, a game needs time. It's like a good wine in that regard. The problem is, Blizzard is NOT giving SC2 time. Each 2 weeks there's a new fucking patch throwing the current balance off. No time for the players to evolve and maybe create solutions to the "imbalances" Instead Blizzard rather listens to random crying etc. And don't you forget there's still HotS and LotV to completely roll the balance dice again... Yes, it needs time. But before LotV is out we cannot even hope for that...
Well I just hope Blizzard realizes this. Right now the most important thing isn't to create perfect 50% balance, but instead to guide the balance towards something where there's interesting match-ups and relationships between units. Like personally, even when Terran was 'OP' I wanted Blizzard to buff Seeker Missiles because they should be a more core part of T's match-ups since they have the potential later on to result in awesome tactical feats. Same with other things. I'd love to see something like a stronger immortal/colossi (even though they are already really good units) that was way slower and had way less HP so it made sense to only really fly them around in warp prisms. I was really disappointed to see the FG projectile rolled back (even as a Zerg player and even knowing it was a huge nerf). Hell, bring back the insane tank damage, but increase their siege time and give other races more options to deal with them. Anything that promotes positional or tactical play, even if it imbalances the game in the short term, is alright in my book. I can see holding off on this stuff until HotS because the game is already incredibly competitive, but hopefully Blizzard realizes that HotS/LotV are their chance to put stuff like this in and balance it out before disrupting the game.
edit... Fazing was also cool, but since the other races really had no way to deal or punish it it was kinda stupid. It's like blink micro, it seems cool at first and sorta is, but overall it just makes a unit flat out stronger rather than something that's actually cool where it's only stronger if you do it better than your opponent does at handling it (like spider mines or dropping reavers).
There's adding execution/micro in a way that pits the player vs the system (like fazing) which is bad imo. Then there's adding execution/micro in a way that pits the player vs the other player (marine splits, tank crawling, reaver dropping, spider mines) and that's what we want a LOT more of.
|
I'm certain in 5 years sc2 will have pro's playing at the skill level of BW pros. There's still so much players haven't tried yet in sc2.
|
/signed.
And this, my darling favorite nerd is why you don't see me in Bnet at all anymore. RIP good times.
(There was a post on positional advantages, game flow and similar stuff somewhere a few days ago, that's exactly my point of view on the issue. Best example was Dark Swarn vs Fungal Growth.
Dark Swam = OMG FUCK NEED TO MOVE MICRO GOGOGO Fungal = Oh. Erh. Fuck. Guess I need to split more next time.)
Edit: This one.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=213083
|
On April 20 2011 06:13 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 06:07 Xeris wrote: there were no gods of BW until 2001-2002 ... Grrr was really big but he wasn't like a "god" , SC2 has been out <1 year now. Give it time :p The difference is Grrr was a 80 apm newbie with no real mechanics that happened to have the strategical genius and micro that made him dominate his respective time. Edit: Not meaning to insult Grrr, the term "newb" is maybe a little offensive, but that's what he would now be with the mechanics he had back then. BW was started from the scratch. We had no pro teams, professional scene, weekly tournaments and people who already went into the game with years and years of practicing their dextery, speed and even had a professional mindset about the game. You can not compare the start of BW to the start of SC2. As a "leader" of the community (which you are in my opinion) you should know that, shouldn't you?
I agree with infernal for the most part, SC2 and BW had very different childhoods. BW was slow progressive and took time, SC2 is already 18 years old and trying to run for president. The people going into SC2 already had the game half figured out, they knew how to practice, mechanically behave, and where to focus their attention. Even with a huge head start SC2 can progress still right? Not exactly, as infernal mentioned, blizzard is a babysitter that is a pure pushover. When every the little baby cries, Blizzard runs to assuage the child who seems to shriek "imbalance" all too often. With constant patching and a lack of "sit back and watch" approach, the game will never properly develop. Blizzard seems to be forcing development of SC2, and its hurting it more than anything.
|
I guess fazing was a bad example for what it was.
TSL3 Spoiler!!!! + Show Spoiler +Mondi showed us some interesting things in the ZvP match up with using roaches for as long as you can get away with it even if the Protoss is getting air units. (He didn't win every game with it but he did do pretty well with it and opens up another path in a match up).
|
Nice blog! Very good points to be made.
|
I agree with most of what you say here. I'm actually becoming less and less interested in watching/playing Sc2.
|
On April 20 2011 06:09 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 06:05 Kralic wrote: SC and BW had very little "revolutions" coming when it first began, you have to start off with figuring out every unit's full potential. A revolution is not quite the "oh look a new build order that countered this old one". In my eyes a revolution is one that changes the entire match up/game ie: Julyzerg's muta micro.
This will emerge eventually but it will take a while like you said remember what Jaedong did 4 years ago or so? That took quite a while for that to materialize.
I know people hate this, but give it time. Actually you are so fucking right. I know that better than you might believe, a game needs time. It's like a good wine in that regard. The problem is, Blizzard is NOT giving SC2 time. Each 2 weeks there's a new fucking patch throwing the current balance off. No time for the players to evolve and maybe create solutions to the "imbalances" Instead Blizzard rather listens to random crying etc. And don't you forget there's still HotS and LotV to completely roll the balance dice again... Yes, it needs time. But before LotV is out we cannot even hope for that... It's being given time, believe me. It'll get more time and attention than most random RTSes could even dream of. Time doesn't make a game, it just helps. I can complain about tournaments and casts for SC2 games being as boring as I want. Mondi and MC are pretty much the only players who look at all interesting to me, and mondi got knocked out by... I don't even know what it was, but it was just gross to watch.
Not every game can be BW, and that includes SC2. If SC2 has the potential to become a legitimately entertaining spectator sport (it honestly isn't right now, I get so bored watching sc2 games), then it'll have to do so before SC3 or whatever new RTS Blizzard decides to switch over to when it's bored of SC2. SC2 won't have money forever to back up its interest. Right now people basically watch SC2 because 'WOW LOOK AT ALL THE MONEY AND TOURNAMENTS IN THIS!" (What did BW have when it came out? Maybe a few Blizzard run "have a t shirt and 50 bucks" tournaments, + the excitement of an online ladder.)
What really interests me right now is if BW will outlast SC2's lifespan. Right now BW is doing pretty decent, considering, but if BW dies you can pretty much say good-bye to any hope of SC2 outlasting SC3 (WarCraft IV?) and good-bye to revolutions and tradition in general. I don't really think I can follow a scene which is fickle with games that are replaced every 5 years.
|
I'm not sure that MC was that much better than White-Ra at bw. And no it shouldn't be a rolfstomp because mechanics matter less in PvP than in the other match ups. PvP in bw has a LOT of mind games and an inferior player can mind fuck the best pros. See PJ vs Bisu at WCG for example ( amazing one gate expo ).
And we are not talking of White-Ra vs Bisu here. MC was really bad man. I know he was pro but still... 1-9 record :/
Also i don't understand why so many players think that White-Ra doesn't practice and is just naturally gifted. Yea of course he is good but he also trains a LOT. In broodwar he was one of the most dedicated foreigners and probably the only guy who deserved to be called pro outside of Korea / China because all the others guys were slackers or just plain bad compared to him.
Remember gameitoss on iccup ? That was an epic account. So many games every season, always sick match lists vs top Kors and high ranks. So no sorry i'm not surprised that he can almost beat MC in Sc2. He trains a lot, he is good, he has a lot of experience and Sc2 mechanics are easier than in bw.
|
On April 20 2011 06:07 Xeris wrote: there were no gods of BW until 2001-2002 ... Grrr was really big but he wasn't like a "god" , SC2 has been out <1 year now. Give it time :p There weren't 100k tournaments announced before the game was released either
|
Lots of the pro's who switched from BW to SC2 were bad at BW, lol. That is a given. Personalities in SC2? Shit, we got tons of them on the international side. Sure, there really isn't any buildup whatsoever in the Korean scene, but the pastures are greener on the International side. Look at our community, posters jump on anything and everything. It's kind of ridiculous. I expect the patch updates to subside a bit soon.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 20 2011 06:33 Boblion wrote: I'm not sure that MC was that much better than White-Ra at bw. And no it shouldn't be a rolfstomp because mechanics matter less in PvP than in the other match ups. PvP in bw has a LOT of mind games and an inferior player can mind fuck the best pros. See PJ vs Bisu at WCG for example ( amazing one gate expo ).
And we are not talking of White-Ra vs Bisu here. MC was really bad man. I know he was pro but still... 1-9 record :/
Also i don't understand why so many players think that White-Ra doesn't practice and is just naturally gifted. Yea of course he is good but he also trains a LOT. In broodwar he was one of the most dedicated foreigners and probably the only guy who deserved to be called pro outside of Korea / China because all the others guys were slackers or just plain bad compared to him.
Remember gameitoss on iccup ? That was an epic account. So many games every season, always sick match lists vs top Kors and high ranks. So no sorry i'm not surprised that he can almost beat MC in Sc2. He trains a lot, he is good, he has a lot of experience and Sc2 mechanics are easier than in bw.
Take a look at Iron's Minor league record, he was by no means bad. (Edit: Let me clarify, yes he was bad compared to Bisu,Flash,JD - but he was still like top50-100 to play that game, if that is bad in your opinion, so be it.) In fact he 4-0'ed Ra when they met at icc. (Obv Iron was smurfing.) I'm not saying Ra is naturally gifted, he's just really good at creating strategies (in general, the ukrainians are total professionals and work nicely together, one of the reasons why they're so strong) - but right now - considering he has a work as well, he is definitely not playing as much as MC.
Sure he still plays a lot. But I'm quite sure MC plays twice as much against better opponents. And yes, I know Gameitoss, rofl, nobody played more in BW than White-Ra, I don't know if he already had a job back then... if so... when the fuck does he sleep?!??!
And by saying you are not surprised by W-ra being that good... do you mean now or before GSL WC? Would you have predicted that? If yes, congratz - you're a farseer. =P
|
As long as BoxeR plays I'm happy. But if there is no one exciting when he's done I'm done with the competitive SC2, for the reasons you listed. I think "fixes" could be made that still wouldn't make SC2 too much like BW. If they were too much alike, both games would suffer in my opinion. You could raise the skillcap without changing the current macro mechanics and so on...
|
I'm starting to like SC2 a lot more than I use to. Time will tell, and it will take a long time. (like you said, after the 2nd expansion.) Cause blizzard could really mix things up, we'll see if they do anything cool. Such as units/spells that actually require micro, we kinda need some of those.
|
Like someone said earlier, I think Mondragon's recent play is the closest thing we have to a revolution. He can out multitask EVERYONE he's played based on mechanics and burrow with roaches. He hasn't quite figured out how to make it cost effective yet, but the more mini-battles that occur in SC2 the better in my opinion. Spanishiwa is another name to bring up. He literally changed the entire opening for zerg players, maybe his is the way of the future.
I think maps will get bigger, multi-tasking will matter more and the greats will find ways to pull ahead. People just don't know how to dominate yet!
|
Even though the mechanics are easier we don't see people playing perfect. At the highest level there are chronos and injects being missed, far from optimal creep spread, bad rallies, over-stims, supply blocks, tons of abilities/spells used inefficiently like forcefields getting cast with too much overlap despite smart cast, and on and on.
Just because there isn't that much skill separation now doesn't mean there can't and won't be in the future.
|
On April 20 2011 06:41 StarStruck wrote: Lots of the pro's who switched from BW to SC2 were bad at BW, lol. That is a given. Personalities in SC2? Shit, we got tons of them on the international side. Sure, there really isn't any buildup whatsoever in the Korean scene, but the pastures are greener on the International side. Look at our community, posters jump on anything and everything. It's kind of ridiculous. I expect the patch updates to subside a bit soon. The active bw players who switched to sc2 (mainly MVP and Iron) were by no means bad. They didn't achieve much, sure, but they could destroy most foreigners with ease and rearely ever lose to the few who were b-team material (like ret and idra). Calling them bad is a gross exaggeration.
|
It's nice that SC2 is more accessible than BW was, but from a spectator point of view, IMO as of now it makes a pretty bad esport.
Macro is too easy, as such there are no "macro players" i.e "omg how did BeSt loose his entire army and already has another one sitting at his rally!" because everyone is a macro player. There are no micro players i.e "omg mundang toss! perfect storrrrrms!" because you no longer need to clone anything. IMO this contributes to the "no good player personalities" as you mentioned because theres very few ways for players to identify themselves.
Units are unexciting. Seeing a Colossus melt a million Hydras was cool the first 2 times, but then it gets old. This has been beaten to death, but its a terrible replacement for the Reaver. There is also nothing exciting about seeing two 200/200 armies clash, have the players remacro back to 200/200, and clash again. Not all games turn out this way, but most do.
Unit AI pathing is something I'm surprised I haven't seen mentioned more. As far as I'm concerned, it's SC2's biggest turn off. What I mean is, when you saw a Zerg army pour across a map, You looked at that mini-map and said "Holy SHIT thats a lot of dots!" Edit: When a Protoss Zealot/Goon force charged a Tank line, the observer is darting all over the battlefield as lots spread out and cut into the line. In SC2, it doesnt matter if you have 5 units or 500. Everything just travels in a huge fucking ball. And I find it all very unepic.
Another thing I'm surprised I haven't seen complained about more. Sounds! Maybe its because I've listened to so much BW commentary in a language I can't understand, but I use a lot of audio clues to know whats happening in game. You KNOW when a group of marines stim, and it sounds bad ass. "PSHHHH AHH THATS THE STUFF" What do you get in SC2? A weak little sound that sounds like a midget fart. Yawn. Science Vessels are a very important unit in TvZ. When one dies, it blows up in fabulous fashion and with a loud, distinguishable sound, so you know "oh shit he lost an expensive unit!" In SC2, someone could kill 5 Ravens and you'd hardly notice throughout the rest of the cluster fuck going on.
The list goes on with epic sound queues being replaced by wussy ones. All the way from Goons dying (dont even get me STARTED on how awesome blue goo was to know how bad that attack really went) to the Archons attack sound (BEEFY in BW, dwarf slap in SC2.)
I could go on, but I hate being such a downer. Bottom line is, it's nice that SC2 is easier to play because it isn't so mechanically demanding. But for me anyway, it fails as a spectator sport. Compared to watching BW, getting an adrenaline rush watching SC2 is as hard as getting a hard on watching grass grow.
|
On April 20 2011 06:43 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 06:33 Boblion wrote: I'm not sure that MC was that much better than White-Ra at bw. And no it shouldn't be a rolfstomp because mechanics matter less in PvP than in the other match ups. PvP in bw has a LOT of mind games and an inferior player can mind fuck the best pros. See PJ vs Bisu at WCG for example ( amazing one gate expo ).
And we are not talking of White-Ra vs Bisu here. MC was really bad man. I know he was pro but still... 1-9 record :/
Also i don't understand why so many players think that White-Ra doesn't practice and is just naturally gifted. Yea of course he is good but he also trains a LOT. In broodwar he was one of the most dedicated foreigners and probably the only guy who deserved to be called pro outside of Korea / China because all the others guys were slackers or just plain bad compared to him.
Remember gameitoss on iccup ? That was an epic account. So many games every season, always sick match lists vs top Kors and high ranks. So no sorry i'm not surprised that he can almost beat MC in Sc2. He trains a lot, he is good, he has a lot of experience and Sc2 mechanics are easier than in bw.
Take a look at Iron's Minor league record, he was by no means bad. (Edit: Let me clarify, yes he was bad compared to Bisu,Flash,JD - but he was still like top50-100 to play that game, if that is bad in your opinion, so be it.) In fact he 4-0'ed Ra when they met at icc. (Obv Iron was smurfing.) I'm not saying Ra is naturally gifted, he's just really good at creating strategies (in general, the ukrainians are total professionals and work nicely together, one of the reasons why they're so strong) - but right now - considering he has a work as well, he is definitely not playing as much as MC. Sure he still plays a lot. But I'm quite sure MC plays twice as much against better opponents. And yes, I know Gameitoss, rofl, nobody played more in BW than White-Ra, I don't know if he already had a job back then... if so... when the fuck does he sleep?!??! And by saying you are not surprised by W-ra being that good... do you mean now or before GSL WC? Would you have predicted that? If yes, congratz - you're a farseer. =P
Ah yea thanks for the clarification, didn't know they met on Iccup. Kinda overreacted when i called him bad too, you are right his dreamleague record is very good. Just wanted to say that the wasn't a top pro. More like a bad A teamer / Solid B teamer.
Still think that White-Ra could have pulled an upset in bw especially if it was some sort of tournament like WCG because he seems kinda immune to stress and has lot of knowledge about the outdated map pool. Oh well maybe i just like himm too much, MC wasn't good enough to get top 3 Korea WCG anyway so it is more like a fantasy match up :p But man that PJ vs Bisu game was amazing... If PJ can take a game of Bisu, White-Ra on a very good day can beat MC in a bo3.
Oh and about GSL WC well i started to follow Sc2 again just after the games ( took a small hiatus in December ) so i can't say that i had predicted the outcome of the game. But if i had to pick one foreign player to beat MC it would have been a P for sure and White-Ra is one of the very best foreign P. MC would have been the favourite though, i will give you that But upsets in bw happen quite often and it is even more true for Sc2 !
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2011 06:57 erin[go]bragh wrote:It's nice that SC2 is more accessible than BW was, but from a spectator point of view, IMO as of now it makes a pretty bad esport. Macro is too easy, as such there are no "macro players" i.e "omg how did BeSt loose his entire army and already has another one sitting at his rally!" because everyone is a macro player. There are no micro players i.e "omg mundang toss! perfect storrrrrms!" because you no longer need to clone anything. IMO this contributes to the "no good player personalities" as you mentioned because theres very few ways for players to identify themselves. Units are unexciting. Seeing a Colossus melt a million Hydras was cool the first 2 times, but then it gets old. This has been beaten to death, but its a terrible replacement for the Reaver. There is also nothing exciting about seeing two 200/200 armies clash, have the players remacro back to 200/200, and clash again. Not all games turn out this way, but most do. Unit AI pathing is something I'm surprised I haven't seen mentioned more. As far as I'm concerned, it's SC2's biggest turn off. What I mean is, when you saw a Zerg army pour across a map, You looked at that mini-map and said "Holy SHIT thats a lot of dots!" Edit: When a Protoss Zealot/Goon force charged a Tank line, the observer is darting all over the battlefield as lots spread out and cut into the line. In SC2, it doesnt matter if you have 5 units or 500. Everything just travels in a huge fucking ball. And I find it all very unepic. Another thing I'm surprised I haven't seen complained about more. Sounds! Maybe its because I've listened to so much BW commentary in a language I can't understand, but I use a lot of audio clues to know whats happening in game. You KNOW when a group of marines stim, and it sounds bad ass. "PSHHHH AHH THATS THE STUFF" What do you get in SC2? A weak little sound that sounds like a midget fart. Yawn. Science Vessels are a very important unit in TvZ. When one does, it blows up in fabulous fashion and with a loud, distinguishable sound, so you know "oh shit he lost an expensive unit!" In SC2, someone could kill 5 Ravens and you'd hardly notice throughout the rest of the cluster fuck going on. The list goes on with epic sound queues being replaced by wussy ones. All the way from Goons dying (dont even get me STARTED on how awesome blue goo was to know how bad that attack really went) to the Archons attack sound (BEEFY in BW, dwarf slap in SC2.) I could go on, but I hate being such a downer. Bottom line is, it's nice that SC2 is easier to play because it isn't so mechanically demanding. But for me anyway, it fails as a spectator sport. Compared to watching BW, getting an adrenaline rush watching SC2 is as hard as getting a hard on watching grass grow. Very true about the sounds. Haven't thought about that yet but you're definitely right.
|
On April 20 2011 06:57 erin[go]bragh wrote:It's nice that SC2 is more accessible than BW was, but from a spectator point of view, IMO as of now it makes a pretty bad esport. Macro is too easy, as such there are no "macro players" i.e "omg how did BeSt loose his entire army and already has another one sitting at his rally!" because everyone is a macro player. There are no micro players i.e "omg mundang toss! perfect storrrrrms!" because you no longer need to clone anything. IMO this contributes to the "no good player personalities" as you mentioned because theres very few ways for players to identify themselves. Units are unexciting. Seeing a Colossus melt a million Hydras was cool the first 2 times, but then it gets old. This has been beaten to death, but its a terrible replacement for the Reaver. There is also nothing exciting about seeing two 200/200 armies clash, have the players remacro back to 200/200, and clash again. Not all games turn out this way, but most do. Unit AI pathing is something I'm surprised I haven't seen mentioned more. As far as I'm concerned, it's SC2's biggest turn off. What I mean is, when you saw a Zerg army pour across a map, You looked at that mini-map and said "Holy SHIT thats a lot of dots!" Edit: When a Protoss Zealot/Goon force charged a Tank line, the observer is darting all over the battlefield as lots spread out and cut into the line. In SC2, it doesnt matter if you have 5 units or 500. Everything just travels in a huge fucking ball. And I find it all very unepic. Another thing I'm surprised I haven't seen complained about more. Sounds! Maybe its because I've listened to so much BW commentary in a language I can't understand, but I use a lot of audio clues to know whats happening in game. You KNOW when a group of marines stim, and it sounds bad ass. "PSHHHH AHH THATS THE STUFF" What do you get in SC2? A weak little sound that sounds like a midget fart. Yawn. Science Vessels are a very important unit in TvZ. When one dies, it blows up in fabulous fashion and with a loud, distinguishable sound, so you know "oh shit he lost an expensive unit!" In SC2, someone could kill 5 Ravens and you'd hardly notice throughout the rest of the cluster fuck going on. The list goes on with epic sound queues being replaced by wussy ones. All the way from Goons dying (dont even get me STARTED on how awesome blue goo was to know how bad that attack really went) to the Archons attack sound (BEEFY in BW, dwarf slap in SC2.) I could go on, but I hate being such a downer. Bottom line is, it's nice that SC2 is easier to play because it isn't so mechanically demanding. But for me anyway, it fails as a spectator sport. Compared to watching BW, getting an adrenaline rush watching SC2 is as hard as getting a hard on watching grass grow.
I think your memory of Broodwar games is over-nostalgic, romanticized and heavily biased towards the games you enjoy and you are ignoring the games you did not enjoy as much. I think your memory of SC2 games is similarly tilted the other directions. I've seen Brood War games that play out in the manner you describe SC2 games. I've seen SC2 games that play out in the manner you describe BW games.
I do, however, agree that BW gives a much better sense of the units dying and having more epic feeling battles. In SC2 units just evaporate.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
SC2 at this moment is too volatile and too unstable (oke same thing really) to have a really dominant player. There is MC but he when he plays I am not wooaaaah because what he does is not really impressive to me. Anyway for now the lack of micro in SC2 bores me a bit.
On the other hand they do have T-ara currently, so thats a +1 for SC2.
|
You can't just dismiss peoples opinions with 'nostalgia'. We continue to watch pro BW right now, and it continues to evolve and surprise us... this isn't based from memories. This is happening now.
|
On April 20 2011 07:28 infinity2k9 wrote: You can't just dismiss peoples opinions with 'nostalgia'. We continue to watch pro BW right now, and it continues to evolve and surprise us... this isn't based from memories. This is happening now.
Thank you taking my post to extremes and boiling it down meaninglessness.
|
I actually feel the opposite, I was quite disappointed initially with sc2, but it's getting better all the time. The macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad, but I don't think macro is everything. Anyone can just make workers and bases, and I feel like that's how it should be. What should separate the pros is their micro, decision making, positioning, scouting, dropping, and harassing. In a sense it's similar to golf. Golf is not that hard to learn and most people can become scratch golfers if they try. The difference between a pro and an amateur might be 2 missed putts. SC2 in fact seems to punish mis microing significantly more than bw so the best players aren't those that make the best decisions, but those that don't falter at all in their macro and unit control. Strategies come and go and strategical players will win some matches, but in the end, those that make 0 mistakes will win. SC2 is like, imagine if everyone in BW knew how to macro decently. I think it's a good thing because it means less bonjwas and more competition. At the same time, we can see that a small group of players is above the rest, but nothing like BW and as a spectator, that is exciting. No one wants to see one player dominate all the time.
|
On April 20 2011 07:59 darmousseh wrote: I actually feel the opposite, I was quite disappointed initially with sc2, but it's getting better all the time. The macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad, but I don't think macro is everything. Anyone can just make workers and bases, and I feel like that's how it should be. What should separate the pros is their micro, decision making, positioning, scouting, dropping, and harassing. In a sense it's similar to golf. Golf is not that hard to learn and most people can become scratch golfers if they try. The difference between a pro and an amateur might be 2 missed putts. SC2 in fact seems to punish mis microing significantly more than bw so the best players aren't those that make the best decisions, but those that don't falter at all in their macro and unit control. Strategies come and go and strategical players will win some matches, but in the end, those that make 0 mistakes will win. SC2 is like, imagine if everyone in BW knew how to macro decently. I think it's a good thing because it means less bonjwas and more competition. At the same time, we can see that a small group of players is above the rest, but nothing like BW and as a spectator, that is exciting. No one wants to see one player dominate all the time. Many people enjoyed Nada / Savior / Oov / Flash eras. Same thing with sports. Basketball without Jordan ? Tennis Without Fed or Nadal ? Bonjwas make the game more exciting especially because you know that one day they will fall. That's Savior vs Bisu is one of the most memorable match of all time.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 20 2011 07:59 darmousseh wrote: I actually feel the opposite, I was quite disappointed initially with sc2, but it's getting better all the time. The macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad, but I don't think macro is everything. Anyone can just make workers and bases, and I feel like that's how it should be. What should separate the pros is their micro, decision making, positioning, scouting, dropping, and harassing. In a sense it's similar to golf. Golf is not that hard to learn and most people can become scratch golfers if they try. The difference between a pro and an amateur might be 2 missed putts. SC2 in fact seems to punish mis microing significantly more than bw so the best players aren't those that make the best decisions, but those that don't falter at all in their macro and unit control. Strategies come and go and strategical players will win some matches, but in the end, those that make 0 mistakes will win. SC2 is like, imagine if everyone in BW knew how to macro decently. I think it's a good thing because it means less bonjwas and more competition. At the same time, we can see that a small group of players is above the rest, but nothing like BW and as a spectator, that is exciting. No one wants to see one player dominate all the time. The point is - as you even said yourself "the macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad". Period. They DON'T do this in SC2, that's my concern. To take BW as an example again - do you think it required less micro, decision making and positioning than SC2? No, the exact opposite is the case. So this means nowadays you do have less (almost none at all) macro and less micro. In fact your whole statement seems kind of biased, because you obviously do prefer (to watch?) micro over macro for excitement / skill value. Do you think real macro took no skill? Or do you actually think that "macro" in SC2 still takes a lot of skill? I don't know, really.
And if you think less bonjwa's is good.... ughhhhhhhhhh, seriously. BW needed those Boxers, Nadas, OOv's and Saviors. And also, all of them fell apart at the one or other point - in fact you have 3 people struggling to become "the next bonjwa" since 2-3 years in BW right now, each having his respective prime (flash just recently and even sicker than Bisu/Jaedong, but don't forget Bisu's dominance during the Golden Age) - how in the hell can you call this boring? "Imagine BW if everyone knew how to macro decently." Ya right, like that's not the case for the Korean Pro's in BW. In fact it is just as you said - micro and decision making is what does the difference. Just that there is a LOOOOOOOOOT more room for mistakes than in SC2. In BW you could turn a battle so heavily into your favour that your opponent was forced to either sacrifice macro time or mismicro which was a game deciding factor as well. Macro into action, drama, multitasking³³³³³³³³, thousands of apm dwindling around (and not being 95% put to waste cause SC2 does anything for you anyway), one slight mistake can be the end... waiting for that stroke of genius that might hit Bisu or Flash ... I don't know how that can be less interesting than "oh lets watch a 200 vs 200 ball in which both players can not tell what the fuck is actually going on nor do have to multitask to macro meanwhile so they can focus only on micro to throw up some storms and forcefields, and look at how nicely they spread out their ball before it clumped once again during the battle!" Seriously?
I like SC2, I really do. But it just doesn't leave me in awe when I watch it. Maybe that's just me being an former "professional" BW gamer (as far as that goes, being non Korean), but really I don't feel like "I can't do this" if I watch that. I realize there's a lot of factors in SC2 too, they're just less than in BW and a lot lot lot more subtle, which makes it less exciting to watch. Just think of this one mine field you ran into because of a drop happening at your natural and you panic'ed. SC2 simply does not have such things that's require constant attention like mines, lurkers etc - but then again - there is a topic regarding this issue and I'm superbly drifting away right now. Check out mahnini's thread if you're actually interested in that.
|
On April 20 2011 07:30 Smurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 07:28 infinity2k9 wrote: You can't just dismiss peoples opinions with 'nostalgia'. We continue to watch pro BW right now, and it continues to evolve and surprise us... this isn't based from memories. This is happening now. Thank you taking my post to extremes and boiling it down meaninglessness.
How is it taking it to extremes. Don't use word nostalgia if you don't actually mean it; You're claiming peoples memories of both BW and SC2 games is tainted by some inherent bias even though both games are active right now and what people are saying is their current feelings on the matter. The guy gave his detailed opinions on a few aspects of the game he preferred in BW such as sound, and you just brushed it aside with your comment.
His comments are fairly objective, many people have commented on the excellent sound design, the fact that you can tell what's going on in a BW game very easily with your eyes closed. Things like crackling attack noises are very much muted in comparison now. And his point about players not having their own styles is quite true as well, the BeSt style macro player is not reall possible anymore, neither is things like Jangbi storms.
However you do have players like Goody who stand out based on their builds, however this will probably change in time when things are found to be less or more viable with more and more experience. It's a bit lacking compared to prehaps, the skill and uniqueness of Leta's 2port wraith compared to everyone else for 1 example. Obviously people are just going to bring up the usual 'give it time' argument for this aspect though.
|
On April 20 2011 08:21 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 07:59 darmousseh wrote: I actually feel the opposite, I was quite disappointed initially with sc2, but it's getting better all the time. The macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad, but I don't think macro is everything. Anyone can just make workers and bases, and I feel like that's how it should be. What should separate the pros is their micro, decision making, positioning, scouting, dropping, and harassing. In a sense it's similar to golf. Golf is not that hard to learn and most people can become scratch golfers if they try. The difference between a pro and an amateur might be 2 missed putts. SC2 in fact seems to punish mis microing significantly more than bw so the best players aren't those that make the best decisions, but those that don't falter at all in their macro and unit control. Strategies come and go and strategical players will win some matches, but in the end, those that make 0 mistakes will win. SC2 is like, imagine if everyone in BW knew how to macro decently. I think it's a good thing because it means less bonjwas and more competition. At the same time, we can see that a small group of players is above the rest, but nothing like BW and as a spectator, that is exciting. No one wants to see one player dominate all the time. The point is - as you even said yourself "the macro mechanics are there to seperate good players from bad". Period. They DON'T do this in SC2, that's my concern. To take BW as an example again - do you think it required less micro, decision making and positioning than SC2? No, the exact opposite is the case. So this means nowadays you do have less (almost none at all) macro and less micro. In fact your whole statement seems kind of biased, because you obviously do prefer (to watch?) micro over macro for excitement / skill value. Do you think real macro took no skill? Or do you actually think that "macro" in SC2 still takes a lot of skill? I don't know, really. And if you think less bonjwa's is good.... ughhhhhhhhhh, seriously. BW needed those Boxers, Nadas, OOv's and Saviors. And also, all of them fell apart at the one or other point - in fact you have 3 people struggling to become "the next bonjwa" since 2-3 years in BW right now, each having his respective prime (flash just recently and even sicker than Bisu/Jaedong, but don't forget Bisu's dominance during the Golden Age) - how in the hell can you call this boring? "Imagine BW if everyone knew how to macro decently." Ya right, like that's not the case for the Korean Pro's in BW. In fact it is just as you said - micro and decision making is what does the difference. Just that there is a LOOOOOOOOOT more room for mistakes than in SC2. In BW you could turn a battle so heavily into your favour that your opponent was forced to either sacrifice macro time or mismicro which was a game deciding factor as well. Macro into action, drama, multitasking³³³³³³³³, thousands of apm dwindling around (and not being 95% put to waste cause SC2 does anything for you anyway), one slight mistake can be the end... waiting for that stroke of genius that might hit Bisu or Flash ... I don't know how that can be less interesting than "oh lets watch a 200 vs 200 ball in which both players can not tell what the fuck is actually going on nor do have to multitask to macro meanwhile so they can focus only on micro to throw up some storms and forcefields, and look at how nicely they spread out their ball before it clumped once again during the battle!" Seriously? I like SC2, I really do. But it just doesn't leave me in awe when I watch it. Maybe that's just me being an former "professional" BW gamer (as far as that goes, being non Korean), but really I don't feel like "I can't do this" if I watch that. I realize there's a lot of factors in SC2 too, they're just less than in BW and a lot lot lot more subtle, which makes it less exciting to watch.Just think of this one mine field you ran into because of a drop happening at your natural and you panic'ed. SC2 simply does not have such things that's require constant attention like mines, lurkers etc - but then again - there is a topic regarding this issue and I'm superbly drifting away right now. Check out mahnini's thread if you're actually interested in that.
I agree with the part about more subtle differences, but that's what happens in a game where the skill ceiling is lower. In chess the difference between a 2000 and 2400 is so subtle, you wouldn't know unless you were told, however, the difference between say Federer and some amateur is huge to the point where it's boring to watch. Every sport obviously has it's player that is better than everyone else, but every sport also has a huge # of pros that can beat those top players at any time. The fact that someone has a > 80% win rate seems rather insane and is not interesting. There is a similar problem in basketball right now, some of the top pros are complaining about the competitiveness of the league and therefore we can expect contraction in the next few years.
About the macro, obviously macro was significantly harder in scbw than in sc2, but there is still a huge difference between a master's macro and a pros.
In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 20 2011 08:47 darmousseh wrote: In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
I wish for me this was the case, I don't know who said it but it fits this perfectly: "Fungal compared to Dark Swarm: Fungal = oh fuck next game I will have to split my force better. Darkswarm = oh fuck I have to get out micro micro micro micro". This is the exact same thing that you brought up with "if you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react, if you run into burrow banes = gg" That's exactly the part about SC2 that freaks me out. The whole game is hit or miss. If you love to watch that, well, congratz to you - I just don't. I never said you don't have to either. Same thing about the part you said above, in theory yes you have more time to micro etc etc but the micro does not matter as much as in Broodwar while you don't have to macro meanwhile either. In fact its more of army composition / openings that decides the games instead of "pure microing" because, as I've said before - there's little micro you can actually do in a maxed out battle other than slightly adjust positioning, activate stim/guardian shield or throw up FF, Psi, Fungal whatever (which again, is a SHITLOAD easier to pull off because of smart-cast [the greatest demise of them all]) - yaaaaaaa vs tanks attacking in waves might be better, but that's really the only applicapble situation for that. And tanks are nothing compared to BW either. There's not such thing as dynamic micro like in BW, you can't even dodge any of the spells except Psi to a certain degree... Either you have enough units and the right unit composition, then you win if you're not too stupid to press T or G or you just don't. If you have 8 Zealots they won't beat 6-7 roaches no matter what except if the roaches stand still, but you could very well outmicro 6-7 Lurkers with Zealots if you spread them perfectly, while usually those 6-7 Lurks would tear the Zealots apart. And this is just one example out of 100. Again as mentioned before, that's just me, you should be happy and continue to enjoy SC2 if you think everything is perfect as it is instead of argueing with nay-sayers as me.
|
Croatia9363 Posts
Nice post, I agree completely. I also just have to quote this post once more, because it's so good ^^ + Show Spoiler +On April 20 2011 06:57 erin[go]bragh wrote:It's nice that SC2 is more accessible than BW was, but from a spectator point of view, IMO as of now it makes a pretty bad esport. Macro is too easy, as such there are no "macro players" i.e "omg how did BeSt loose his entire army and already has another one sitting at his rally!" because everyone is a macro player. There are no micro players i.e "omg mundang toss! perfect storrrrrms!" because you no longer need to clone anything. IMO this contributes to the "no good player personalities" as you mentioned because theres very few ways for players to identify themselves. Units are unexciting. Seeing a Colossus melt a million Hydras was cool the first 2 times, but then it gets old. This has been beaten to death, but its a terrible replacement for the Reaver. There is also nothing exciting about seeing two 200/200 armies clash, have the players remacro back to 200/200, and clash again. Not all games turn out this way, but most do. Unit AI pathing is something I'm surprised I haven't seen mentioned more. As far as I'm concerned, it's SC2's biggest turn off. What I mean is, when you saw a Zerg army pour across a map, You looked at that mini-map and said "Holy SHIT thats a lot of dots!" Edit: When a Protoss Zealot/Goon force charged a Tank line, the observer is darting all over the battlefield as lots spread out and cut into the line. In SC2, it doesnt matter if you have 5 units or 500. Everything just travels in a huge fucking ball. And I find it all very unepic. Another thing I'm surprised I haven't seen complained about more. Sounds! Maybe its because I've listened to so much BW commentary in a language I can't understand, but I use a lot of audio clues to know whats happening in game. You KNOW when a group of marines stim, and it sounds bad ass. "PSHHHH AHH THATS THE STUFF" What do you get in SC2? A weak little sound that sounds like a midget fart. Yawn. Science Vessels are a very important unit in TvZ. When one dies, it blows up in fabulous fashion and with a loud, distinguishable sound, so you know "oh shit he lost an expensive unit!" In SC2, someone could kill 5 Ravens and you'd hardly notice throughout the rest of the cluster fuck going on. The list goes on with epic sound queues being replaced by wussy ones. All the way from Goons dying (dont even get me STARTED on how awesome blue goo was to know how bad that attack really went) to the Archons attack sound (BEEFY in BW, dwarf slap in SC2.) I could go on, but I hate being such a downer. Bottom line is, it's nice that SC2 is easier to play because it isn't so mechanically demanding. But for me anyway, it fails as a spectator sport. Compared to watching BW, getting an adrenaline rush watching SC2 is as hard as getting a hard on watching grass grow.
On an unrelated note, let me know when you want to practice for isl showmatch
|
That's why I said lots.
MVP is the only player who left while he could have made a pro league roster. -.-
Every other player was slumping including July.
|
On April 20 2011 09:51 StarStruck wrote: That's why I said lots.
MVP is the only player who left while he could have made a pro league roster. -.-
Every other player was slumping including July. Could have made? MVP and Iron were both A-teamers and had regular appearances in proleague.
edit, yeah true. Iron not so much.
|
Iron was not regularly appearing in proleague.
MVP only by virtue of us not having any other terrans at the time. And because he's a boss.
|
On April 20 2011 09:16 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 08:47 darmousseh wrote: In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
I wish for me this was the case, I don't know who said it but it fits this perfectly: "Fungal compared to Dark Swarm: Fungal = oh fuck next game I will have to split my force better. Darkswarm = oh fuck I have to get out micro micro micro micro". This is the exact same thing that you brought up with "if you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react, if you run into burrow banes = gg" That's exactly the part about SC2 that freaks me out. The whole game is hit or miss. If you love to watch that, well, congratz to you - I just don't. I never said you don't have to either. Same thing about the part you said above, in theory yes you have more time to micro etc etc but the micro does not matter as much as in Broodwar while you don't have to macro meanwhile either. In fact its more of army composition / openings that decides the games instead of "pure microing" because, as I've said before - there's little micro you can actually do in a maxed out battle other than slightly adjust positioning, activate stim/guardian shield or throw up FF, Psi, Fungal whatever (which again, is a SHITLOAD easier to pull off because of smart-cast [the greatest demise of them all]) - yaaaaaaa vs tanks attacking in waves might be better, but that's really the only applicapble situation for that. And tanks are nothing compared to BW either. There's not such thing as dynamic micro like in BW, you can't even dodge any of the spells except Psi to a certain degree... Either you have enough units and the right unit composition, then you win if you're not too stupid to press T or G or you just don't. If you have 8 Zealots they won't beat 6-7 roaches no matter what except if the roaches stand still, but you could very well outmicro 6-7 Lurkers with Zealots if you spread them perfectly, while usually those 6-7 Lurks would tear the Zealots apart. And this is just one example out of 100. Again as mentioned before, that's just me, you should be happy and continue to enjoy SC2 if you think everything is perfect as it is instead of argueing with nay-sayers as me.
People say that whole "You can beat 6 - 7 lurkers with Zealots" all the time, but there's a lot of the other type of situation in BW, too. And SC2 has situations where micro matters - people just don't build those units often. It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false.
Also, saying the macro is "easy" when the current group of pro gamers is banking 1k/1k on 3 base with sub-capped armies seems pretty weird to me. Even at the Diamond level, people don't macro very well. The only difference now is that SC2's bad macro is probably 100% better than BW's bad macro. At the top level, it's nearly identical - you can tell because BW players that came to SC2 don't have top tier macro with top tier mechanics. Just look at TheWind vs. SuperNova: there's a million micro and macro mistakes in that game alone.
That said, it'd be nice if Fungal was a stronger Plague. But keep in mind BW had some anti-micro spells; EMP, Stasis, etc. The only real complaint is probably that FF should be a higher energy cost spell so it doesn't go away but rather you can't cast almost infinite forcefields whenever you want during the early and mid games.
I feel like you're missing a lot of the fun things that SC2 does have. Saying that players are great when, frankly, they aren't is kinda unfair to SC2.
|
|
On April 20 2011 22:50 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 22:36 ShadowWolf wrote: you can tell because BW players that came to SC2 don't have top tier macro with top tier mechanics. Just look at TheWind vs. SuperNova: there's a million micro and macro mistakes in that game alone.
Since when TheWind and By.Sair were top bw players ?
That was my point, entirely. They weren't top players now and they didn't become better players after switching to SC2. Their macro was mediocre/bad by comparison to top progamers in Sc1 and it's still not good in SC2.
|
Russian Federation327 Posts
It seems like Blizzards failed to understand the good sides of their own game =) The idea behind SC2 was quite simple & good: - less mechanic, so more players will be able to play - more emphasis dynamic battles and tactic & strategy Sound nice, dosn't it?
But there are some problems: 1. Macro & Micro not just mechanic but another resource like gas or minerals. Which brings a lot of tricks to distract your opponent and consume his APM (e.g. Flash vs Best with insane drop-play harass). Mechanical elements can play big role in the tactical sense and throwing it off can hurt gameplay a lot.
2. The RTS games are about APM + strategy, if you want strategy with easy mechanic then you better check turn-based wargames. You can't put whole gameplay's weight on the single horse called strategy, it is just not enough for RTS. I think in this sense SC2 is similar to cute pony: quite lovely, kids like it but not suitable for horse-race. Small maps make situation even worser and this big-whole-lotta-special-effects battles not fun to watch.
3. From esport perspective triumph of SC2 and it's funeral are the same thing. Chef mentioned it in his post (http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=214462¤tpage=2#22). It is impossible to raise new generation of S players for game with short lifespan. One major release each year means no Bisu/Jaedong for you. Stability is the key for turning esport from underground to legitimate stuff. If Blizzard really cares about esport as they told, they should make some SCBW reissue with win7 compatibility and better resolution.
Can SC2 be a good game? -Yes, but esport is different matters.
|
On April 20 2011 22:36 ShadowWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 09:16 iNfeRnaL wrote:On April 20 2011 08:47 darmousseh wrote: In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
I wish for me this was the case, I don't know who said it but it fits this perfectly: "Fungal compared to Dark Swarm: Fungal = oh fuck next game I will have to split my force better. Darkswarm = oh fuck I have to get out micro micro micro micro". This is the exact same thing that you brought up with "if you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react, if you run into burrow banes = gg" That's exactly the part about SC2 that freaks me out. The whole game is hit or miss. If you love to watch that, well, congratz to you - I just don't. I never said you don't have to either. Same thing about the part you said above, in theory yes you have more time to micro etc etc but the micro does not matter as much as in Broodwar while you don't have to macro meanwhile either. In fact its more of army composition / openings that decides the games instead of "pure microing" because, as I've said before - there's little micro you can actually do in a maxed out battle other than slightly adjust positioning, activate stim/guardian shield or throw up FF, Psi, Fungal whatever (which again, is a SHITLOAD easier to pull off because of smart-cast [the greatest demise of them all]) - yaaaaaaa vs tanks attacking in waves might be better, but that's really the only applicapble situation for that. And tanks are nothing compared to BW either. There's not such thing as dynamic micro like in BW, you can't even dodge any of the spells except Psi to a certain degree... Either you have enough units and the right unit composition, then you win if you're not too stupid to press T or G or you just don't. If you have 8 Zealots they won't beat 6-7 roaches no matter what except if the roaches stand still, but you could very well outmicro 6-7 Lurkers with Zealots if you spread them perfectly, while usually those 6-7 Lurks would tear the Zealots apart. And this is just one example out of 100. Again as mentioned before, that's just me, you should be happy and continue to enjoy SC2 if you think everything is perfect as it is instead of argueing with nay-sayers as me. People say that whole "You can beat 6 - 7 lurkers with Zealots" all the time, but there's a lot of the other type of situation in BW, too. And SC2 has situations where micro matters - people just don't build those units often. It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false. Also, saying the macro is "easy" when the current group of pro gamers is banking 1k/1k on 3 base with sub-capped armies seems pretty weird to me. Even at the Diamond level, people don't macro very well. The only difference now is that SC2's bad macro is probably 100% better than BW's bad macro. At the top level, it's nearly identical - you can tell because BW players that came to SC2 don't have top tier macro with top tier mechanics. Just look at TheWind vs. SuperNova: there's a million micro and macro mistakes in that game alone. That said, it'd be nice if Fungal was a stronger Plague. But keep in mind BW had some anti-micro spells; EMP, Stasis, etc. The only real complaint is probably that FF should be a higher energy cost spell so it doesn't go away but rather you can't cast almost infinite forcefields whenever you want during the early and mid games. I feel like you're missing a lot of the fun things that SC2 does have. Saying that players are great when, frankly, they aren't is kinda unfair to SC2.
I want to pinpoint a specific quote from this. "It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false."
The hard counter system does indeed exist in sc2 where it doesn't exist in broodwar. For example, In broodwar a vulture doesn't counter a dragoon, but with proper micro a vulture can kill a dragoon. In sc2, a hellion will never kill a stalker. You can give the control of the hellion to slayers_boxer and give the stalker to a 3 year old child, and the child will win.
|
Russian Federation327 Posts
Even at the Diamond level, people don't macro very well. Of course their macro is bad, coz Diamond = D+
BW had some anti-micro spells; EMP, Stasis, etc. Actually you can run from EMP =) And Stasis is mostly used against sieged tanks, so no point to micro anyway.
I don't think you arguments are good, even if there are few bad things in SCBW it doesn't defend SC2 position at all. I like FF in SC2, but it is not enough to change the game-feeling from a bruteforce clash to elegance fencing.
|
On April 21 2011 01:36 ReGreTT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 22:36 ShadowWolf wrote:On April 20 2011 09:16 iNfeRnaL wrote:On April 20 2011 08:47 darmousseh wrote: In sc2, with the easier macro mechanics, it means that micro becomes significantly more important. There will never be a situation where you just outmacro your opponent and win (unless you are significantly better), this game requires perfect micro from both sides. No one can even do that yet which is why most games are one sided. In scbw, you had to sacrifice macro for micro or vice versa, and a few gifted could do both. This isn't scbw and it means both players should have perfect macro, and it comes down to engagement instead.
With the less amount of time spent macroing, players can spend more time on other stuff, it's not like there's nothing to do at any given time. One difference is watching your army. If you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react. If you run into burrowed banes, gg. This brings the tension higher for a small period of time.
Watch white-ra vs mc at the world championships and tell me if you don't find that game entertaining.
I wish for me this was the case, I don't know who said it but it fits this perfectly: "Fungal compared to Dark Swarm: Fungal = oh fuck next game I will have to split my force better. Darkswarm = oh fuck I have to get out micro micro micro micro". This is the exact same thing that you brought up with "if you run into lurkers, you have a small amount of time to react, if you run into burrow banes = gg" That's exactly the part about SC2 that freaks me out. The whole game is hit or miss. If you love to watch that, well, congratz to you - I just don't. I never said you don't have to either. Same thing about the part you said above, in theory yes you have more time to micro etc etc but the micro does not matter as much as in Broodwar while you don't have to macro meanwhile either. In fact its more of army composition / openings that decides the games instead of "pure microing" because, as I've said before - there's little micro you can actually do in a maxed out battle other than slightly adjust positioning, activate stim/guardian shield or throw up FF, Psi, Fungal whatever (which again, is a SHITLOAD easier to pull off because of smart-cast [the greatest demise of them all]) - yaaaaaaa vs tanks attacking in waves might be better, but that's really the only applicapble situation for that. And tanks are nothing compared to BW either. There's not such thing as dynamic micro like in BW, you can't even dodge any of the spells except Psi to a certain degree... Either you have enough units and the right unit composition, then you win if you're not too stupid to press T or G or you just don't. If you have 8 Zealots they won't beat 6-7 roaches no matter what except if the roaches stand still, but you could very well outmicro 6-7 Lurkers with Zealots if you spread them perfectly, while usually those 6-7 Lurks would tear the Zealots apart. And this is just one example out of 100. Again as mentioned before, that's just me, you should be happy and continue to enjoy SC2 if you think everything is perfect as it is instead of argueing with nay-sayers as me. People say that whole "You can beat 6 - 7 lurkers with Zealots" all the time, but there's a lot of the other type of situation in BW, too. And SC2 has situations where micro matters - people just don't build those units often. It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false. Also, saying the macro is "easy" when the current group of pro gamers is banking 1k/1k on 3 base with sub-capped armies seems pretty weird to me. Even at the Diamond level, people don't macro very well. The only difference now is that SC2's bad macro is probably 100% better than BW's bad macro. At the top level, it's nearly identical - you can tell because BW players that came to SC2 don't have top tier macro with top tier mechanics. Just look at TheWind vs. SuperNova: there's a million micro and macro mistakes in that game alone. That said, it'd be nice if Fungal was a stronger Plague. But keep in mind BW had some anti-micro spells; EMP, Stasis, etc. The only real complaint is probably that FF should be a higher energy cost spell so it doesn't go away but rather you can't cast almost infinite forcefields whenever you want during the early and mid games. I feel like you're missing a lot of the fun things that SC2 does have. Saying that players are great when, frankly, they aren't is kinda unfair to SC2. I want to pinpoint a specific quote from this. "It's a really frustrating comparison to me because it implies that SC2 has all the "hard counter" units, which is absolutely false." The hard counter system does indeed exist in sc2 where it doesn't exist in broodwar. For example, In broodwar a vulture doesn't counter a dragoon, but with proper micro a vulture can kill a dragoon. In sc2, a hellion will never kill a stalker. You can give the control of the hellion to slayers_boxer and give the stalker to a 3 year old child, and the child will win.
I agree, Regrett, very good point. In SC2, a hellion will never kill a goon 1 on 1, not even if it's Boxer vs. a 3 year old.
To the OP, great blog post. I agree whole-heartily, and it's not like I hate SC2 (in fact, I may like it more if it didn't have Starcraft in the name. It's sort of a disappointment with it), I just want it to be a better game than it is. Heck, what would be really awesome is if all the money being pooled into SC2 went to BW, but I know that would be extremely hard to pull off.
Just as long as Blizzard doesn't try to balance the game to appease the people in silver ranks, I'll trust that, given time, it may become a game worthy of the name Starcraft.
|
The problem with the concept that "expansions will improve situation", "patches will make it better" is that those arguments misunderstand the goal of blizzard. The goal is NOT to make a high skill ceiling brutally hard to micro game(aka bw terran mnm, protoss reavers, zerg lategame drop style). Why? because that is frustrating to casuals, who are the bulk source of revenue. They would get angry that they will never be able to use their units to a decent degree, so the game has to be dumbed down to suit them(aka sc2 style protoss ball, colossus, sc2 mmm). That is how business works.
|
On April 21 2011 05:07 xarthaz wrote: The problem with the concept that "expansions will improve situation", "patches will make it better" is that those arguments misunderstand the goal of blizzard. The goal is NOT to make a high skill ceiling brutally hard to micro game(aka bw terran mnm, protoss reavers, zerg lategame drop style). Why? because that is frustrating to casuals, who are the bulk source of revenue. They would get angry that they will never be able to use their units to a decent degree, so the game has to be dumbed down to suit them(aka sc2 style protoss ball, colossus, sc2 mmm). That is how business works. Eh, I always think that it won't hurt the game too much to add in a few overpowered, hard-to micro units similar to the Reaver+Shuttle in addition to weaker, easy-to-micro alternatives such as the Colossus, even if they may overlap in unit roles. The game is fine for casuals as is, and I think it would not harm the casuals to throw in a few more "spicy" units into the mix that would be fun to play with but excruciatingly hard to control at a high level.
Yes, Blizzard wants to cater to casuals in addition to hardcore players. However, I think they already pleased the former to an acceptable degree, and with the game released with tons of feedback emanating from the community, they at least have more tangible evidence of what the community wants for an e-sport. Considering how well-received WC3: Frozen Throne was with its myriad of changes, I personally wouldn't be so pessimistic about the future.
|
SC2 simply lacks strong personalities. The biggest problem I see is creating new strong personalities in SC2. Will there ever be a Jaedong-esque revolution (if you don't think he did one, check out how ZvP in BW was played 4 years ago and laugh.) going on for Zerg in SC2? Might be, but even if it will probably be less amazing than what JD did. Why?
Because JD's "revolution" was based on so much personal SKILL that it just left people in awe. Sure, you can have 450 apm in SC2 and be really good - but you still would not be so much better than everyone else (playing Zerg) than a Jaedong is (or was, not sure bout that atm). What? Compared to BW, SC2 has way more strong personalities. The foreign scene will always have more drama/BM than the korean scene and now with SC2 the foreign scene is actually relevant. If you are pointing out a problem imo it's with SC2, not a problem with the people who play it. It's possible there is room for the kind of personal skill that you are coveting in SC2 (or that the expansions will create it) but right now I agree that there isn't and it makes SC2 not very fun to watch.
|
The idea is this: a dominant strategy game consists of multiple facets. ie strategy combined with mechanics combined with timings etc. SC2 has managed to almost completely nullify the mechanics part of it, leaving it at the same level of many other strategy games where your brain does most of the work. No one is impressed by a large group of free thinkers, ask Israel. The fact is, comparing BW to SC2 is physically impossible not only in development but in the "RTS" category itself due to its insane lack of mechanical (aka physical) playing ability. Another downside of that comparison is that SC2 does not have a community. That is one thing you can compare to BW, where BW immediately had a community. SC2 is just a bunch of tournaments with a lack of overall organization, it's like the sponsors are playing in a casino. The house will always win as they dump their money into something that will never produce anything for them, besides money.
|
|
|
|