|
On December 18 2010 23:00 Greentellon wrote:******GSL 3 FINAL SPOILERS******+ Show Spoiler +Game is young and people are still learning. GSL S3 just showed how dramatically the general image of "balance" can change in a short period of time. There were no major game-changing balance patches during GSL S3 and protoss went from underdog to the top dog (at least in my eyes ). Game changes, and this game is extremely well balanced. I mean, just in the Ro8 or so people were still voicing loudly how "terran all-ins are toooo strong". Well, I'm not hearing THOSE cries any longer I'm very confident in saying that this game rewards the better player.
Not really a spoiler, but I'll hide it just so I can't be accused of it: + Show Spoiler +Keep in mind, the complaints about terran all-ins being "toooo strong" were coming primarily from zerg. Also, just because the more skilled players wins doesn't mean suddenly all is well with the world. There is a reason Iron was favored to win by a huge % of people, and it wasn't balance reasons, but because Rain is/was a vastly inferior player to him.
The nature of SC will probably always be small win %. BW, a game with an immense skill ceiling, still doesn't have people pulling absolutely insane win % like there are in other genres. Maybe certain matchups due to a hot streak or map can result in a very good % for a while, but even then it steadies off usually. A game with incomplete information can never have those 90%+ victory chance unless the player is simply vastly, vastly superior to their opponent.
|
I'm sorry but MarineKing is absolutely legit in my opinion. You can't talk about SC2 lacking good mechanics to separate good/bad players and then dismiss the one guy whose unit micro is basically unparalleled right now.
I like Artosis a lot but it really bothers me that he and other Zerg players like him try to 'illegitimize' terran rush builds or any kind of build that doesn't focus purely on a macro game as somehow not 'proper' starcraft. Zerg's entire strength comes from establishing a superior economy, any opponent that sits back and allows that to happen has a very poor understanding of the game and is very likely to lose. Therefore rushing and 'cheese' will always be a legitimate response to a zerg going for a hard eco build, unless blizzard decides to completely re-balance the dynamics of the TvZ matchup.
|
On December 18 2010 23:11 virtualbreaks wrote: I'm sorry but MarineKing is absolutely legit in my opinion. You can't talk about SC2 lacking good mechanics to separate good/bad players and then dismiss the one guy whose unit micro is basically unparalleled right now.
I like Artosis a lot but it really bothers me that he and other Zerg players like him try to 'illegitimize' terran rush builds or any kind of build that doesn't focus purely on a macro game as somehow not 'proper' starcraft. Zerg's entire strength comes from establishing a superior economy, any opponent that sits back and allows that to happen has a very poor understanding of the game and is very likely to lose. Therefore rushing and 'cheese' will always be a legitimate response to a zerg going for a hard eco build, unless blizzard decides to re-balance the dynamics of the TvZ matchup.
Yah I agree, MK needs to work on his allround play but he's clearly really talented. I think their attitude towards him is partly due to the fact that he really popularised the TvZ marine/SCV push
|
Albeit in BW, Flash isn't completely untouchable, but he sure damn well comes close to be.
SC2's mechanics works in a way that even someone who's head and shoulders above you can still lose games at a decent chance.
Pretty sure people like flash would rarely if ever lose to someone who isn't close to his ability.
Both of these are good examples of where my question lies. I never saw Flash or Jaedong play, and I am sure the intracacies of their performances would be lost on me now since I never really looked at BW in a true competitive sense, the way I have come to learn and understand SC2. But when I hear people talk of them they sound untouchable, as if one would have to channel the very hand of god to defeat them. In all competitive fields, I gravitate towards that. Being in awe of a true master is something I really enjoy about any professional scene.
Were/are they in fact, that dominant, or would they also fall in line with that 70-75% rule? Is that normal for this game? Is that what it was in BW? Does it seem low to people who have followed the scene?
The fact of the matter is Bitbybitprime, Marinekingprime... players like this who are often derided for their play... got there. So they deserve to be there.
In all competitive fields, this is a common notion. "A win is a win". I tend to agree. But when professionals and respected members of the field seem to pretty clearly disagree I must give pause. But maybe I am giving them too much credit just because they are respected professionals?
Think on that for a second. In say, American Football, are the players all wise sages who speak nothing but football truth? No way. They moan and complain and make excuses and deride one another's abilities and credentials even when it seems to make no sense. Sometimes its ego, sometimes its ignorance and every so often, it IS truth. I guess it's because I can readily identify with the sub-culture involved that I assume that the feelings of a pro must be based in some form of objective reality. Also, the nature of SC2 and all RTS is such that we tend to assume a certain ability of the players to be capable of objective analysis on a level beyond even a well versed forum goer.
Maybe they aren't. Maybe even guys like Artosis or inControl talk out their ass sometimes when it's a topic they feel passionately about and it just needs to be taken with a grain of salt rather than used as an indication that the pros feel the game is not rewarding good play. Again, since I lack a basis for comparison coming from a Street Fighter background where this kind of thing is undeard of, it's difficult for me to say.
|
On December 18 2010 23:11 virtualbreaks wrote: I'm sorry but MarineKing is absolutely legit in my opinion. You can't talk about SC2 lacking good mechanics to separate good/bad players and then dismiss the one guy whose unit micro is basically unparalleled right now.
I like Artosis a lot but it really bothers me that he and other Zerg players like him try to 'illegitimize' terran rush builds or any kind of build that doesn't focus purely on a macro game as somehow not 'proper' starcraft. Zerg's entire strength comes from establishing a superior economy, any opponent that sits back and allows that to happen has a very poor understanding of the game and is very likely to lose. Therefore rushing and 'cheese' will always be a legitimate response to a zerg going for a hard eco build, unless blizzard decides to completely re-balance the dynamics of the TvZ matchup.
Cant do anything but completely agree with this. I dont like the rush builds because they keep games short and somewhat lacking, for the most part, but they are legit and stoppable meaning they should be a part of the game since it adds flavor.
|
On December 18 2010 22:41 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: skill is defined by being able to win games. winning games is skill.
Nothing more to say. If someone always cheeses und do all in and wins the tournament, then he is the best player for now. People who thinks otherwise are scrubs. Blame the game not the player.
|
SC2 maps are very small, which restricts games and therefore restricts the opportunities for the superior player to outplayer the inferior player. The extreme example is early all-in play; short distances reduce defender's advantage AND reduce the window to detect and respond to the all-in.
|
I would say that its because the game is stilp evolving and far from complete. In BW most of the pros are almost untouchable. SC2 is still new and theres still gonna be 2 expansions that will change everything
|
I dont even want to see the same two players in every single finals.
|
InControl is wrong on one count - MKPrime oozes talent.
In BW it was around the same? The best player would win around 60% of their games, hence the need for BO5 or a series. Nothing like the 99% you see if SF, or whatever the figure is.
|
The game has only been out for 5 months, personally I'm surprised its developed this fast. How was starcraft when it was out for 5 months? Everyone 4 pooled, mutalisks were almost unkillable, reaver drops were instant, and in general rushes reigned supreme. If you ask me sc2 is doing just fine, and perhaps by the time HoTS is out we'll see the "better" player win more often.
|
On December 18 2010 22:41 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: skill is defined by being able to win games. winning games is skill.
You're gonna tell me with a straight face that BitByBit and HongunPrime are skilled players?
|
I think its rewarding the people the understand the game the most at the moment. I dont think there is a clear line of the most skilled, but theyre skilled. I just think if fruitdealer hopped on the NA server and faced someone that knew the XvZ matchup realllllly good than he could lose. 50/50 shot.
(P.s) I love your name
|
i dont know if you guys know, but flash basically cheesed in all of his games before he became a god of starcraft.
would anyone now look back and say that flash is just incredibly bad and unskilled? A win is a win, and people need to stop giving excuses as to why they lose.
|
On December 19 2010 00:07 Zalfor wrote: i dont know if you guys know, but flash basically cheesed in all of his games before he became a god of starcraft.
would anyone now look back and say that flash is just incredibly bad and unskilled? A win is a win, and people need to stop giving excuses as to why they lose.
Except that with watered down mechanics cheese is a lot easier to pull off and it usually just comes down to whether your opponent scouts or blindly pulls of the right counter tactic as you attack move (with rare exceptions being players like marineking who genuinely have good micro), aka bitbybit prime style. Flash's cheeses were brilliantly microed and I have no idea where people get the idea that cheesing was all he did because he showed the ability to play macro from the start. He just had the guts to cheese more than others did and did so in big matches as well, making it seem like that was all he did. His series vs Bisu pretty much cemented this conception but to say he didn't have the skills to play standard games is shortsighted
|
in sc1 i was an high C player and end up loseing to D players from iccup when playing sc2
at first thought oh well new game but sc2 removed alot of the little things that seperated good players and bad macro/micro the marine can fire while basically moving at same time since it has such high dps and giving new players options to hotkey every unit and buildings they have with a single hotkey
|
On December 18 2010 23:46 nihoh wrote: InControl is wrong on one count - MKPrime oozes talent.
In BW it was around the same? The best player would win around 60% of their games, hence the need for BO5 or a series. Nothing like the 99% you see if SF, or whatever the figure is.
thats because when u watch bw games everyone is a progamer gsl brought in alot of starcraft players which alot where unknown and still did really good vs retired pro gamers
|
Give it time. Eventually the pros, who spend soooo much time knowing how to beat every single strategy, will eventually be immune to lesser players' cheesy tactics. With a game that has so many variables and seperate skills to perfect, it's only normal that it will take time for the pros to be perfect at it.
|
The reason why someone can be considered inferior in skill to the player he beats if he cheeses is because most cheese builds are easier to execute than their respective counters. Much easier.
I don't know if people universally agree with this, but this has been my perception too. To be more precise, it suggests that defense takes more skill and saavy to be good at than offense. It may be worth noting, that this is actually the exact opposite of Street Fighter and most fighting games in general.
In SF, defense is the easy part. Every possible attack can be blocked with a simple input and its always one of two inputs. The only thing not blockable are grabs, which can only be applied in extremely close quarters and can be escaped with no reprecussion with another simple input. With three simple inputs and average reflexes, you can stop any incoming attack without fault so long as you are not "open".
Offense, on the other hand is where the true skill of the player is. With defense being so mechanically simple, landing even one attack on a skilled player requires reading one's opponent, conditioning them to respond how you want them to, and then using the right move to defeat that response. Then, turning that one hit into an un-interrupted chain of hits requires timing as strict as 1/60 of a second and often requires the player to enter a sequence of 10-15 inputs or more in well under a second.
The end result is that in order to deafeat someone, you must have enough skill to overcome their easy to execute defense with a far more elaborate and challenging offense. There is no real scenario in which you can beat them without outclassing them, because the only way to even hurt them is to outstrip their mechanical skill with yours by nearly an order of magnitude.
Come to think of it, that fact may be why you don't hear these debates in the SF community. Your opponent simply cannot put you in a bad situation and harm you without exhibiting a higher degree of skill than you, barring some obvious mistake on your own part.
SC2 and most strategy games are kind of the opposite I suppose. Defending requires solid intel, knowledge and understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents attack, choosing the right course of action, preparing and finally executing it. Attacking can be as simple as "make probes, make pylons, make lots of units and attack".
It's also no coincidence, as several people have mentioned here that the game in which defense is easy features complete information and the one in which offense is easy features incomplete information.
|
There are a few reasons why players who are not great go so far in tournaments.
1 Luck of the draw in opponents
2 A not fully evolved/patched game with an unstable meta game
3 The map pool
1e In the current "meta game" if there is a highly abusive strategy (reapers, 4 gate, baneling bust) and you wind up facing a race that an abusive strategy demolishes you will win almost ever game because their race as a whole has not yet adapted to it.
2e This allows for timing pushes that in BW would only damage an opponent and allow you to expand, but in this game can end it quite easily and even if it doesn't work it will do so much damage they cannot recover without you making a mistake.
3e The map pool is made up of maps that are very short and not that complex. This leads to more big army clashing rather than multiple attacks and a more evolved decision making, again making anyone who is executing an abusive style even stronger.
I don't know if/when the game will evolve, but it will most likely take the next 1-2 expansion games as well as a better map pool to truly make it so the best players advance and the weaker players drop off.
|
|
|
|