|
On February 23 2013 02:42 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 02:35 NoobSkills wrote:On February 23 2013 02:17 thezanursic wrote: FlasH had 85% one season and 65% the next depending on his shape. The other bonjwas winrates were also scewed during their pre and after bonjwa eras and you seem to forget that FlasH had a 74% winrate over all match ups for 4 years... Thats longer than the entierty of SC2s life span + it's beta.
Soo MVP doesn't really compare in any shape or form because he was only dominant for a year and even calling that a dominance is questionable. He is also comparing apples to oranges. Flash dominated late in BroodWar where the meta game was pretty much figured out, but he perfected the BO, knowledge of his enemy, and use of every tool at his disposal. MvP dominated where one could say Boxer dominated in BW with more micro than perfection of BO, macro, micro, the whole game. Edit: I would also like to say that people comparing this to tennis/soccer there is only ONE matchup in Tennis/soccer (the other player/team). They might play differently (build order), but they're all the same and have the same tools. MU specific players do exist and can even thrive which makes SC2 more volatile. This also I would have mentioned it in my post, but I didn't want to make the post to long. Ohh and just to emphasise this again MVP's best winratio over a year was 68% Flash's best winratio over a year was somewhere around 85%
What year was he close to 85%? That is simply incredible, a source or link from TLPD would be great.
|
United States97248 Posts
On February 23 2013 02:58 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 02:42 thezanursic wrote:On February 23 2013 02:35 NoobSkills wrote:On February 23 2013 02:17 thezanursic wrote: FlasH had 85% one season and 65% the next depending on his shape. The other bonjwas winrates were also scewed during their pre and after bonjwa eras and you seem to forget that FlasH had a 74% winrate over all match ups for 4 years... Thats longer than the entierty of SC2s life span + it's beta.
Soo MVP doesn't really compare in any shape or form because he was only dominant for a year and even calling that a dominance is questionable. He is also comparing apples to oranges. Flash dominated late in BroodWar where the meta game was pretty much figured out, but he perfected the BO, knowledge of his enemy, and use of every tool at his disposal. MvP dominated where one could say Boxer dominated in BW with more micro than perfection of BO, macro, micro, the whole game. Edit: I would also like to say that people comparing this to tennis/soccer there is only ONE matchup in Tennis/soccer (the other player/team). They might play differently (build order), but they're all the same and have the same tools. MU specific players do exist and can even thrive which makes SC2 more volatile. This also I would have mentioned it in my post, but I didn't want to make the post to long. Ohh and just to emphasise this again MVP's best winratio over a year was 68% Flash's best winratio over a year was somewhere around 85% What year was he close to 85%? That is simply incredible, a source or link from TLPD would be great. over a year or over a season? The best I saw on TLPD for calendar years were 2010 and 2011 at 75% which is by no means bad (it's still really fucking good) but it's not 85% for a year 2008 69.12% 2009 74.10% 2010 75.15% (76.11% if you add in his 10-1 WCG run) 2011 74.73% 2012 67.44%
Mvp's win rate was 70.16% (214 - 91) if you combine both TLPDs for 2011. International TLPD contains the GSL World Championship he won, WCG, MLG Anaheim, MLG Providence, and a few other tournaments
|
On February 23 2013 03:06 Shellshock1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 02:58 Nick_54 wrote:On February 23 2013 02:42 thezanursic wrote:On February 23 2013 02:35 NoobSkills wrote:On February 23 2013 02:17 thezanursic wrote: FlasH had 85% one season and 65% the next depending on his shape. The other bonjwas winrates were also scewed during their pre and after bonjwa eras and you seem to forget that FlasH had a 74% winrate over all match ups for 4 years... Thats longer than the entierty of SC2s life span + it's beta.
Soo MVP doesn't really compare in any shape or form because he was only dominant for a year and even calling that a dominance is questionable. He is also comparing apples to oranges. Flash dominated late in BroodWar where the meta game was pretty much figured out, but he perfected the BO, knowledge of his enemy, and use of every tool at his disposal. MvP dominated where one could say Boxer dominated in BW with more micro than perfection of BO, macro, micro, the whole game. Edit: I would also like to say that people comparing this to tennis/soccer there is only ONE matchup in Tennis/soccer (the other player/team). They might play differently (build order), but they're all the same and have the same tools. MU specific players do exist and can even thrive which makes SC2 more volatile. This also I would have mentioned it in my post, but I didn't want to make the post to long. Ohh and just to emphasise this again MVP's best winratio over a year was 68% Flash's best winratio over a year was somewhere around 85% What year was he close to 85%? That is simply incredible, a source or link from TLPD would be great. over a year or over a season? The best I saw on TLPD for calendar years were 2010 and 2011 at 75% which is by no means bad (it's still really fucking good) but it's not 85% for a year 2008 69.12% 2009 74.10% 2010 75.15% 2011 74.73% 2012 67.44%
Yeah same, i didnt know if he meant year like starting in April and ending in March of the next year. 75 is still crazy. 85 % just seems too nuts though. He would win 5 out of 6 games his win rate would go down lol.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
On February 22 2013 17:29 Fionn wrote: I feel bad for Artosis. Must suck always making public predictions, being wrong and having people say you curse their favorite players.
Oh you!
|
Does anybody have any stats on the best players from bw in like, 2003? I mean even then, that is 5 years experience with BW, but I imagine itll be pretty different than stats from like 2008+
|
United States97248 Posts
On February 23 2013 03:27 TheRabidDeer wrote: Does anybody have any stats on the best players from bw in like, 2003? I mean even then, that is 5 years experience with BW, but I imagine itll be pretty different than stats from like 2008+ BoxeR's numbers 2001 73.68% 2002 57.29% 2003 53.13%
iloveoov's numbers 2003 80.95% (only 42 games) 2004 64.39% 2005 61.64% 2006 54.24%
NaDa's numbers 2002 72.73% 2003 64.34% 2004 65.32% 2005 56.25% 2006 57.35%
|
On February 23 2013 03:27 TheRabidDeer wrote: Does anybody have any stats on the best players from bw in like, 2003? I mean even then, that is 5 years experience with BW, but I imagine itll be pretty different than stats from like 2008+
What you have to realize is that everyone didn't lose the 10+ years of learning to analyze RTS games they gained from BW, AOE, WaR3, ect.
When BW came out maximizing efficiency in macro and builds wasn't nearly at the level it was at when SC2 hit the scene. In the first 6 months of Sc2 we had thread after thread, of mathematical breakdowns of each race and it's optimization. We had lengthy analysis of maximizing economy, zerg expansion and pool timing were broken down scientifically before sc2 beta ended, terran expansion and mule timing also became set in stone very early (the only change now is we often see expansion 1st builds) but these were also popular in BW. Keep in mind, it took BW 5 years to reach that point in the meta, where it took Sc2 less than 2 years (and that is a big deal considering all of the terrain negating and crazy all ins that exist in Sc2 compared to BW.
I think BW was a virgin experience, no one really knew how to play an RTS when the original starcraft came out, the RTS games before it didn't have the complexity in econ or the unit diversity to warrant the depth of understanding that starcraft requires at top levels.
Any new mainstream RTS that ever is released, will be analyzed and understood in it's first year, better than BW was understood in it's first 5. Just look how long BW was out when players like iLuvoov rose up, think about how elementary his "revolutionary macro play" seems by today's standards. He started 1 rax expanding against zerg, and it changed everything, it took another 5 years after that when flash came along and started CC first all the time in BW. Starcraft 2 when through these changes in under 2 years, with constant and drastic balance changes.
|
On February 23 2013 03:37 Shellshock1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 03:27 TheRabidDeer wrote: Does anybody have any stats on the best players from bw in like, 2003? I mean even then, that is 5 years experience with BW, but I imagine itll be pretty different than stats from like 2008+ BoxeR's numbers 2001 73.68% 2002 57.29% 2003 53.13% iloveoov's numbers 2003 80.95% (only 42 games) 2004 64.39% 2005 61.64% 2006 54.24% NaDa's numbers 2002 72.73% 2003 64.34% 2004 65.32% 2005 56.25% 2006 57.35% ~60%? that means they lose 40% of the time. broodwar must be a very volatile game
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Good job Artosis, you got so many things wrong that people now think the game is broken
|
On February 23 2013 03:45 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 03:27 TheRabidDeer wrote: Does anybody have any stats on the best players from bw in like, 2003? I mean even then, that is 5 years experience with BW, but I imagine itll be pretty different than stats from like 2008+ What you have to realize is that everyone didn't lose the 10+ years of learning to analyze RTS games they gained from BW, AOE, WaR3, ect. When BW came out maximizing efficiency in macro and builds wasn't nearly at the level it was at when SC2 hit the scene. In the first 6 months of Sc2 we had thread after thread, of mathematical breakdowns of each race and it's optimization. We had lengthy analysis of maximizing economy, zerg expansion and pool timing were broken down scientifically before sc2 beta ended, terran expansion and mule timing also became set in stone very early (the only change now is we often see expansion 1st builds) but these were also popular in BW. Keep in mind, it took BW 5 years to reach that point in the meta, where it took Sc2 less than 2 years (and that is a big deal considering all of the terrain negating and crazy all ins that exist in Sc2 compared to BW. I think BW was a virgin experience, no one really knew how to play an RTS when the original starcraft came out, the RTS games before it didn't have the complexity in econ or the unit diversity to warrant the depth of understanding that starcraft requires at top levels. Any new mainstream RTS that ever is released, will be analyzed and understood in it's first year, better than BW was understood in it's first 5. Just look how long BW was out when players like iLuvoov rose up, think about how elementary his "revolutionary macro play" seems by today's standards. He started 1 rax expanding against zerg, and it changed everything, it took another 5 years after that when flash came along and started CC first all the time in BW. Starcraft 2 when through these changes in under 2 years, with constant and drastic balance changes. THANK YOU. Been trying to express this notion clearly but failing to do so for years.
EDIT: So sick of the "give it time" argument. The only time this game requires is the time it artificially creates by expanding the game to multiple expansions and numerous drastic patches. + A few months for any dedicated Korean proteam to massgame post-change and determine what winning should look like.
|
On February 23 2013 02:54 Treemonkeys wrote: The "Artosis curse" is simply that the guy is really good at sounding way more intelligent and knowledgeable than he really is. I love his casting, but lets be honest and admit he has basically zero humility and he can't come close to playing on the level of the players he regularly critiques and predicts.
Yeah, if people have listened to Artosis from the very beginning, they'd realise that he only like players who play a certain style of play or play the way he theorizes as the optimal way of playing. Anyone who deviates from that is a "bad" player. He has toned down a lot since those days but it showed he doesn't really know what good play or good decisions are. All the Protoss players he hyped up are a year ago who played Protoss "correctly" are nowhere near the top while the Protoss players he heavily criticised during the days of "Sad Zealot" are still here. Artosis's days of heavily criticizing the Protoss players were one of the most frustrating periods of SC2 for me. It's just a shame that the top Protosses who are still here today just did not get the credit they deserve.
|
The player who plays better will win roughly 90% of the time (cheese and build order losses notwithstanding).
One player may be "better" than another, which only means his average performance in a given game is higher than the other's. However, the "better" player may still have bad games, and the "worse" player can have good ones. The player who plays better always wins, it's just that in StarCraft it is hard to consistently play better than everyone else every single game. You have off games, it's just the nature of the [e]sport.
|
United States97248 Posts
On February 23 2013 04:12 kheldorin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 02:54 Treemonkeys wrote: The "Artosis curse" is simply that the guy is really good at sounding way more intelligent and knowledgeable than he really is. I love his casting, but lets be honest and admit he has basically zero humility and he can't come close to playing on the level of the players he regularly critiques and predicts. Yeah, if people have listened to Artosis from the very beginning, they'd realise that he only like players who play a certain style of play or play the way he theorizes as the optimal way of playing. Anyone who deviates from that is a "bad" player. He has toned down a lot since those days but it showed he doesn't really know what good play or good decisions are. All the Protoss players he hyped up are a year ago who played Protoss "correctly" are nowhere near the top while the Protoss players he heavily criticised during the days of "Sad Zealot" are still here. Artosis's days of heavily criticizing the Protoss players were one of the most frustrating periods of SC2 for me. It's just a shame that the top Protosses who are still here today just did not get the credit they deserve. Yeah this is definitely true. He's not afraid to go overboard on the hype either. For example, during Innovation's latest series vs Symbol, they mentioned that he had unbelievable army control, yet if you just watched the games you could see that Innovation wasn't splitting well against banelings at all. I was also very surprised when they admitted this season that Nestea's play was actually terrible.
|
On February 23 2013 02:08 Blargh wrote:I'm glad SOMEONE realizes it. Guys, get ready for this... I'll even put it in spoilers. + Show Spoiler +Starcraft is not the best competitive game. Go play Quake and Chess. Really.
Because my post felt empty, I'll add more. Innovation is far more talented than Symbol, it's a sad truth which is apparent if you study games closely. Innovation makes TONS of intelligent decisions on basically everything. Symbol on the other hand, just carries out his build and it wins or it doesn't win. Symbol makes those small decisions occasionally, but when compared to a player like Bomber or Polt or Innovation (lolterranfanboy) you will see that there is so much more to those players than what you see out of many other pros. Naniwa also makes a lot of small intelligent decisions, but he isn't as refined. But the sad thing is, those small decisions don't even pay off in the long run. Sometimes it's just better to herpderp your way to victory (look at all the roach-rush builds out there, total herpderp). And that my friends, is Starcraft Poo.
This guy wrote the truth. Starcraft just isnt the competitive game that you want it to be.
The game itself runs way too fast to give a human enough time to make smart decisions during combat, the only thing you can really do is to try and position the army (as a whole) in a better fashion, by splitting off certain segments or moving certain segments, or stutter stepping the whole army, or move certain big type units like the colossus to the back. These measures are all easily done and trivial. When it comes to doing smart micro stuff, it becomes a complete shitfest in big combat, because everything dies way too quickly The game just runs too fast to allow for actual PROPER micro, like the one we saw in wc3. In wc3, A-moving your army against a microing player, will always lose you the battle. In sc2, A-moving your army against a microing player, will probably result in you winning the battle even more decisively, because any micro the opponent does might actually hurt the smart AI focus fire. What is left? A-moving your army and then macroing, and then the occassional stutter step and splitting off of segments and moving them around.
Sc2 will never achieve the depth of skill that wc3 had.
|
On February 23 2013 04:16 Shellshock1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 04:12 kheldorin wrote:On February 23 2013 02:54 Treemonkeys wrote: The "Artosis curse" is simply that the guy is really good at sounding way more intelligent and knowledgeable than he really is. I love his casting, but lets be honest and admit he has basically zero humility and he can't come close to playing on the level of the players he regularly critiques and predicts. Yeah, if people have listened to Artosis from the very beginning, they'd realise that he only like players who play a certain style of play or play the way he theorizes as the optimal way of playing. Anyone who deviates from that is a "bad" player. He has toned down a lot since those days but it showed he doesn't really know what good play or good decisions are. All the Protoss players he hyped up are a year ago who played Protoss "correctly" are nowhere near the top while the Protoss players he heavily criticised during the days of "Sad Zealot" are still here. Artosis's days of heavily criticizing the Protoss players were one of the most frustrating periods of SC2 for me. It's just a shame that the top Protosses who are still here today just did not get the credit they deserve. Yeah this is definitely true. He's not afraid to go overboard on the hype either. For example, during Innovation's latest series vs Symbol, they mentioned that he had unbelievable army control, yet if you just watched the games you could see that Innovation wasn't splitting well against banelings at all. I was also very surprised when they admitted this season that Nestea's play was actually terrible.
I don't remember which player it was but there was a game where Arotosis said that the Terran Kespa player had unbelievable macro. When he saw how many supply drops that the player used instead of mules, he began theorizing why using supply drops are better than mules.
|
United States97248 Posts
On February 23 2013 04:21 kheldorin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 04:16 Shellshock1122 wrote:On February 23 2013 04:12 kheldorin wrote:On February 23 2013 02:54 Treemonkeys wrote: The "Artosis curse" is simply that the guy is really good at sounding way more intelligent and knowledgeable than he really is. I love his casting, but lets be honest and admit he has basically zero humility and he can't come close to playing on the level of the players he regularly critiques and predicts. Yeah, if people have listened to Artosis from the very beginning, they'd realise that he only like players who play a certain style of play or play the way he theorizes as the optimal way of playing. Anyone who deviates from that is a "bad" player. He has toned down a lot since those days but it showed he doesn't really know what good play or good decisions are. All the Protoss players he hyped up are a year ago who played Protoss "correctly" are nowhere near the top while the Protoss players he heavily criticised during the days of "Sad Zealot" are still here. Artosis's days of heavily criticizing the Protoss players were one of the most frustrating periods of SC2 for me. It's just a shame that the top Protosses who are still here today just did not get the credit they deserve. Yeah this is definitely true. He's not afraid to go overboard on the hype either. For example, during Innovation's latest series vs Symbol, they mentioned that he had unbelievable army control, yet if you just watched the games you could see that Innovation wasn't splitting well against banelings at all. I was also very surprised when they admitted this season that Nestea's play was actually terrible. I don't remember which player it was but there was a game where Arotosis said that the Terran Kespa player had unbelievable macro. When he saw how many supply drops that the player used instead of mules, he began theorizing why using supply drops are better than mules. It was TY (BaBy)
|
On February 23 2013 04:21 gh0un wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 02:08 Blargh wrote:I'm glad SOMEONE realizes it. Guys, get ready for this... I'll even put it in spoilers. + Show Spoiler +Starcraft is not the best competitive game. Go play Quake and Chess. Really.
Because my post felt empty, I'll add more. Innovation is far more talented than Symbol, it's a sad truth which is apparent if you study games closely. Innovation makes TONS of intelligent decisions on basically everything. Symbol on the other hand, just carries out his build and it wins or it doesn't win. Symbol makes those small decisions occasionally, but when compared to a player like Bomber or Polt or Innovation (lolterranfanboy) you will see that there is so much more to those players than what you see out of many other pros. Naniwa also makes a lot of small intelligent decisions, but he isn't as refined. But the sad thing is, those small decisions don't even pay off in the long run. Sometimes it's just better to herpderp your way to victory (look at all the roach-rush builds out there, total herpderp). And that my friends, is Starcraft Poo. This guy wrote the truth. Starcraft just isnt the competitive game that you want it to be. The game itself runs way too fast to give a human enough time to make smart decisions during combat, the only thing you can really do is to try and position the army (as a whole) in a better fashion, by splitting off certain segments or moving certain segments, or stutter stepping the whole army, or move certain big type units like the colossus to the back. These measures are all easily done. When it comes to doing smart micro stuff, it becomes a complete shitfest in big combat, because everything dies way too quickly The game just runs too fast to allow for actual PROPER micro, like the one we saw in wc3. In wc3, A-moving your army against a microing player, will always lose you the battle. In sc2, A-moving your army against a microing player, will probably result in you winning the battle even more decisively, because any micro the opponent does might actually hurt the smart AI focus fire. What is left? A-moving your army and then macroing, and then the occassional stutter step and splitting off of segments and moving them around. Sc2 will never achieve the depth of skill that wc3 had.
You do realize that SC2 has adjustable game speed right? No Pro has argued for playing at a slower speed.
|
On February 23 2013 02:58 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 02:42 thezanursic wrote:On February 23 2013 02:35 NoobSkills wrote:On February 23 2013 02:17 thezanursic wrote: FlasH had 85% one season and 65% the next depending on his shape. The other bonjwas winrates were also scewed during their pre and after bonjwa eras and you seem to forget that FlasH had a 74% winrate over all match ups for 4 years... Thats longer than the entierty of SC2s life span + it's beta.
Soo MVP doesn't really compare in any shape or form because he was only dominant for a year and even calling that a dominance is questionable. He is also comparing apples to oranges. Flash dominated late in BroodWar where the meta game was pretty much figured out, but he perfected the BO, knowledge of his enemy, and use of every tool at his disposal. MvP dominated where one could say Boxer dominated in BW with more micro than perfection of BO, macro, micro, the whole game. Edit: I would also like to say that people comparing this to tennis/soccer there is only ONE matchup in Tennis/soccer (the other player/team). They might play differently (build order), but they're all the same and have the same tools. MU specific players do exist and can even thrive which makes SC2 more volatile. This also I would have mentioned it in my post, but I didn't want to make the post to long. Ohh and just to emphasise this again MVP's best winratio over a year was 68% Flash's best winratio over a year was somewhere around 85% What year was he close to 85%? That is simply incredible, a source or link from TLPD would be great. Gonna throw out there that MVP at his peak was playing a less balanced game than flash and wasn't nearly as dominant as Flash was.
|
The main reason it's so volatile it's because we can't be doing BO5's or higher every time due to time constraints.
The volatility of the game has been considerably reduced since the early days mainly by making the maps larger (Steppes of War anyone?)
|
On February 23 2013 04:25 kheldorin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 04:21 gh0un wrote:On February 23 2013 02:08 Blargh wrote:I'm glad SOMEONE realizes it. Guys, get ready for this... I'll even put it in spoilers. + Show Spoiler +Starcraft is not the best competitive game. Go play Quake and Chess. Really.
Because my post felt empty, I'll add more. Innovation is far more talented than Symbol, it's a sad truth which is apparent if you study games closely. Innovation makes TONS of intelligent decisions on basically everything. Symbol on the other hand, just carries out his build and it wins or it doesn't win. Symbol makes those small decisions occasionally, but when compared to a player like Bomber or Polt or Innovation (lolterranfanboy) you will see that there is so much more to those players than what you see out of many other pros. Naniwa also makes a lot of small intelligent decisions, but he isn't as refined. But the sad thing is, those small decisions don't even pay off in the long run. Sometimes it's just better to herpderp your way to victory (look at all the roach-rush builds out there, total herpderp). And that my friends, is Starcraft Poo. This guy wrote the truth. Starcraft just isnt the competitive game that you want it to be. The game itself runs way too fast to give a human enough time to make smart decisions during combat, the only thing you can really do is to try and position the army (as a whole) in a better fashion, by splitting off certain segments or moving certain segments, or stutter stepping the whole army, or move certain big type units like the colossus to the back. These measures are all easily done. When it comes to doing smart micro stuff, it becomes a complete shitfest in big combat, because everything dies way too quickly The game just runs too fast to allow for actual PROPER micro, like the one we saw in wc3. In wc3, A-moving your army against a microing player, will always lose you the battle. In sc2, A-moving your army against a microing player, will probably result in you winning the battle even more decisively, because any micro the opponent does might actually hurt the smart AI focus fire. What is left? A-moving your army and then macroing, and then the occassional stutter step and splitting off of segments and moving them around. Sc2 will never achieve the depth of skill that wc3 had. You do realize that SC2 has adjustable game speed right? No Pro has argued for playing at a slower speed.
Its not really the gamespeed itself i am talking about, though it would definitely be more beneficial to tone it down quite significantly. What i was talking about is how fast stuff happens in the game itself, regardless of gamespeed. Whether the game runs with super fast speed or slow speed, if you A-move your armies at each other in super slowmotion, you still wont have time to micro away targets, since they are prone to dying to a single volley of marine/roach/hydra/viking/colossus etc etc. The units dont have enough health and deal too much damage, leaving no room for correction once the engagement starts, the best thing you can do is A-Move and then try to stutter certain segments, or position yourself better beforehand. An example of a game that is very slow but has stuff happen very fast? Chess. You have all the time in the world to make your decision, the gameplay itself is extremely slow, but stuff happens extremely fast once something happens: you can lose the whole game with a single bad move/mistake. I will get to this in a second.
There is a time when you have to realize that being good at a game (you can call it pro) doesnt make that person a good game designer that understands what a game really needs to be competitive. I am game designer and i can tell you that the speed isnt the only thing that sc2 is being held back by. A competitive game should do atleast one of the following two things in order to be a competitive game: 1. Give the player enough room for error in order to not immediately lose on the first mistake they do (sc2 is heavily prone to this, vortex winning/losing the game is just one example of this, in reality this happens all the time in every single game) Good example of a game that achieves this? Any team based game, since 1 mistake does not immediately lose you the game, you can make mistakes, but the team that does less mistakes in the long run wins the game. This also includes games like quake, because one death does not immediately lose you the game, you can die several times in a row, but you can still win by making less mistakes in the long run. What would an application of this be in sc2? BO 20 or more, which isnt really possible because one game takes so long, but since a single game (or a few games) dont give enough room for error, you can easily lose while being the better player. What would a feasible application of this be in sc2? Making the armies robust enough to not immediately die in a badly taken fight and making bases slightly easier to defend (thus you can still defend with your slightly weaker army if you took a bad fight). If you do several of these mistakes, you lose, but you wont lose instantly if you do a mistake once, which sc2 is popular for. 2. If you dont give enough room for error, then you have to give the player enough time to make the correct decision instead of a mistake. This is how games like chess achieve its´ competitiveness. They dont give much room for error, one mistake can lead to you losing the game, but they give you enough time to do the correct thing, thus you are less prone to simple mistakes. Sc2 does not give enough time to make the correct decision during a combat, thus you cant always do the correct thing during combat, thus you are prone to doing random mistakes and losing to a worse player on the first mistake you do and since 1. doesnt apply either, we got a bad competitive game at our hands.
Sc2 does not achieve any of these two points i mention, and and thats a huge part of why the game is actually terribad for competitiveness.
|
|
|
|