|
Good points. I have two issues with Starcraft:
1. Games are "upset-tacular." Players considered "lower skill" can still beat pros by catching them off guard with rushes of some sort. This would never happen in other comparable sports like, say, tennis.
2. Individual games have no swing. Once you've gained an advantage, even minor (like killing workers with harass), you greatly increase your chance of winning the game. If you're ahead, you stay ahead. If you're behind, you inevitably lose. Just look how quickly Idra GGs when the balance swings against him.
Just my opinion.
|
Doesnt sf4 have tiered charachters? Like 2 players of equal skill using an S and C class charachter, the S would probably win.
If so how can you even begin to make a comparison with sc2? The races arent even explored yet. (But people still try to rank them) You just saw the so called weak race win a GSL. Id say its still early days to be complaining about unskilled victories.
|
On December 18 2010 23:19 TheLonelyCarrier wrote: 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?
By Flash and Jaedong then yes. They are without a doubt close to perfection but even if it's close it still means they can lose to others just like any other sport miracles / upsets can happen (in which this past week has happened).
If you want to have any indications how hard it is to jump into BW then it would be like playing your first sc2 game against a 2200+ diamond and then upwards.
Compare Flash to the 3500 diamond and the 2200+ diamond you faced to a silver/gold level player then that should come close I'd say. It's not accurate but it feels mentally like that if u see their games when you have it played it yourself and it might be even a bigger gap in reality.
On December 18 2010 23:19 TheLonelyCarrier wrote: 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.
Obviously this isn't always the case there are always exceptions to these kinds of things but when all players of a particular race who practices maybe 6-10+ hours a day and they all do the same thing in which they play at the highest level and come out as very close winners or losers out of a game then something should be said about it right? Obviously you need to take every opinion with a grain of salt but if every pro player is saying the same then there should be some truth in it like you said.
|
I think SC2 is superior in terms of rewarding the most "SKILLED" player..
People assume Skill = apm and speed.. when that is not the truth. That was rewarded in BW, where in SC2 you just need enough to be able to not be sloppy..
what SHOULD win games, in BW or SC2.. is GAME SMARTS! Decision making, Handling pressure, being able to out-think your opponent and win the mental battle..
That wasnt so much the case in BW, because you had to focus so much on building.. Thats why every single game was basically a 40 minute macro battle (SNORE!).. in SC2, it really comes down to the smartest player who wins the games, after you take away the apm/macro "necessity".. (except for SCV/marine all-ins.. yea, thats abit stupid right now)
This is why IdrA was winning so much in beta, but hasnt done much since, because in beta he was head and shoulders above the macro "necessity" that other people couldnt keep up.. but NOW that people are practiced and caught up macro-wise, they totally outsmart idra, and obviously that is Idra's major weakness, adapting and being a smart player rather than a mechanical player.
TSL_Rain, say what you want about his lategame macro skills, but hes a SMART player, therefor he deserved to be in the finals or at least top 8. MC, on the otherhand, is just insanely talented and smart, and the best example is in the game on Lost Temple, where MC was facing like 6 tanks + mass marines, with a very little army, which most people would of GG'd right there.. MC didnt let the pressure get to him and eventually broke free, and won that game in the end. THAT is rewarding the most "skilled" player, someone who can handle the pressure and not be phased, someone who can come back in a macro game solely do to great decision making (DT in the gold expo while defending main won him the game).. APM/macro should have very little relevance on who wins, like it does in BW where Flash and Jaedong, obviously the two most talented macro players, are completely wrecking everyone with no contest.
|
On December 19 2010 00:50 lowercase wrote: Good points. I have two issues with Starcraft:
1. Games are "upset-tacular." Players considered "lower skill" can still beat pros by catching them off guard with rushes of some sort. This would never happen in other comparable sports like, say, tennis.
2. Individual games have no swing. Once you've gained an advantage, even minor (like killing workers with harass), you greatly increase your chance of winning the game. If you're ahead, you stay ahead. If you're behind, you inevitably lose. Just look how quickly Idra GGs when the balance swings against him.
Just my opinion.
if the "pro" was really a "pro".. he wouldnt fall for any of those off guard rushes.. he would know how to SCOUT and see everything coming instantly and defend it.. This is why I disagree so largely with this whole "newbs can win in SC2" arguement.. Its retarded. Outside of this marine/mass SCV all-in right now, every single thing in this game is easily defendable if you scout and play smart. If you play too greedy and fast expo without scouting your opponents 9pool, you deserve to lose, regardless if you are a "pro" vs a bronze player.
I'll majorly disagree with your 2nd point too, example MC vs Rain today, on Lost temple. MC was WAYY behind but good decisions and he came back to win. its way more easier to come back and win a game with decision making and good micro than it was in BW.
|
Well TBH I think looking at people's skill from BW and then SC2 shows a lot. Obviously SC2 requires skill but is a less mechanical game than its predecessor. I mean HuK was like C+ and yet he is able to go and become one of the best early SC2 players? Not to take anything away from him, but in a game like BW I would almost never have been able to take a game off even korean progamers, but right now I am certain I could... With (don't get me wrong, very skilled) amateurs getting really far, who had little chance of succeeding in BW are doing very well in SC2. As well, a lot of players can shine at the top for a period of time, but there is no single player who just dominates to the extent of Flash, Jaedong or Bisu. Obviously it is a different game, but in BW if I was confident I was much superior to my opponent I would lose maybe 5~10% of the time. In SC2 however I would put that % much higher, even if I know I am going to get cheesed (not to mention factors like close positions on LT or meta vs terran, where it is near impossible to stop cheese unless you hard counter it.)
|
I believe part of the reason is that the sc2 has too many elements that are potentially game ending or gives advantages that are much greater than actual skill can overcome. For example, one DT or Banshee can be potentially game ending when not prepared. 2 rax marines or proxys can also be game ending or gives huge advantages to the aggressor that as long as that person isn't half bad at macro, it is very hard to come back. Blind build order counters auto wins games.
The issue is that it is impossible to be prepared for all the possibilities at once as there isn't enough resources. Players must pick and choose what they prepare for. When all the possibilities can be game ending, and it is difficult to get information to prepare for them (fog of war), actual skill differences between players become less significant (but not insignificant) to the outcome of the game. Hence even the best sc or sc 2 players will have 70-75% win max.
Whether the players who abuse the same strategies that are more effective and very easy to execute "deserve" their achievement or not is a whole different matter.
|
On December 18 2010 23:39 Severedevil wrote: 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. Superior player in what regards? Objectively you can't rank people. You can only rank them according to rules. I, too, have problems with the rules, but which are legitimate and which are not?
Due to the complexity and hidden information, in sc2 there are more random events and guessing involved. If I get to keep my macro play going, I often win. If the opponent 'by chance' picks the right opening, I often lose very hard.
On December 19 2010 00:50 lowercase wrote: 2. Individual games have no swing. Once you've gained an advantage, even minor (like killing workers with harass), you greatly increase your chance of winning the game. If you're ahead, you stay ahead. If you're behind, you inevitably lose. Just look how quickly Idra GGs when the balance swings against him.
Just my opinion.
It's the same in bw or many other sports. You then only win if the enemy drops his guard, but that should rarely happen. One miss-step with the force field or in a baneling war can decide the game.
That's a good training for real life.
On December 19 2010 01:02 Skyze wrote: If the "pro" was really a "pro".. he wouldnt fall for any of those off guard rushes.. he would know how to SCOUT and see everything coming instantly and defend it.. This is why I disagree so largely with this whole "newbs can win in SC2" arguement.. Its retarded. Outside of this marine/mass SCV all-in right now, every single thing in this game is easily defendable if you scout and play smart. Sometimes you can't receive scouting information.
Pros are not perfect, how should they see everything coming and instantly defend it? In the history of mankind has that ever been like that?
|
Why are people trying to say that some players in bw don't have crazy high win percentages? flash is above 70% in every single MU!!!!!! I would like to see a single sc2 player that even gets close to that. Actually I would like to see a typical sc2 'pro' get close to 60% win rate. SC2 is an imbalanced game, and it will be until long after all 3 expansions are released. I don't understand why people are playing an inferior game, that will continue to be inferior until all three expansions are out. And by that time, the game will have so many units that trying to balance that monstrosity will be very difficult.
|
On December 19 2010 01:04 PhatCop wrote: I believe part of the reason is that the sc2 has too many elements that are potentially game ending or gives advantages that are much greater than actual skill can overcome. For example, one DT or Banshee can be potentially game ending when not prepared. 2 rax marines or proxys can also be game ending or gives huge advantages to the aggressor that as long as that person isn't half bad at macro, it is very hard to come back. Blind build order counters auto wins games.
The issue is that it is impossible to be prepared for all the possibilities at once as there isn't enough resources. Players must pick and choose what they prepare for. When all the possibilities can be game ending, and it is difficult to get information to prepare for them (fog of war), actual skill differences between players become less significant (but not insignificant) to the outcome of the game. Hence even the best sc or sc 2 players will have 70-75% win max.
Whether the players who abuse the same strategies that are more effective and very easy to execute "deserve" their achievement or not is a whole different matter.
This. Some people already pointed out in other threads that in BW, should an unexpected wraith come into your base, you're not done, whereas in SC2, if a banshee shows up and you've got no detection, you're out.
I guess this is something that we'll have to keep in mind when looking at how the game evolves. Can't say yet whether this will prove problematic or sort itself out with time.
|
******GSL 3 FINAL SPOILERS****** + Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 23:00 Greentellon wrote: At one point I may have been at the opinion of "protoss is underpowered", but I was wrong. You really shouldnt base your opinion on protosses power level based on just one player. Personally I dont think toss is under or over powered. It is simply powered. + Show Spoiler +by the tears of zerg and terran scrubs
|
MarineKing has the best pure micro of any SC2 player I've seen so far. For someone of the calibre of Incontrol (a strong player but not in the same league as MarineKing) to say such a low manner thing as MK deserves nothing he has achieved so far serves only to reflect very badly on Incontrol himself.
Quite a poor statement to make.
|
You can not compare SC2 to SF4 because it is like comparing apples to oranges.
SF4 is a micro-orientated game. You pick a character and proceed to control him/her to win.
SC2 is a combination of micro and macro orientated. You can play pretty well if you choose to focus solely on micro. Like Foxer, his macro is somewhat average but his micro marines are just beastly. Macro players like Nestea or FD also do really well.
|
On December 18 2010 23:19 TheLonelyCarrier wrote: 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?
70-75% win ratio in BW is godlike. Only in short bursts does people have higher than that, where they found an edge and the opponents havn't found how to counter it yet.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/players/424_Flash/main
He is in the low 70's and is considered the best player, with some very minor doubts.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/players/211_Jaedong/main
That is number two is in the high 60's. Where Flash has taken so many games from him that that drags his average down (it also seems to be his weakest over all matchup).
As others have stated, this is due to imperfect information.
To make it kind of make sense in a fighting game sense. You don't know which character your opponent has picked until the first strike is on the way and you have to dodge/block it with minor warning. There are only so many characters and attacks possible, so you have a decent chance of doing the right thing and then play from there. Except the enemy can jump up to a hider and you have to guess when and where the attack is coming from, but now you know the character at least.
Edit, part of the skill set is guessing what the opponent will do. Since that is part of the skill set it means 90's isn't possible when fighting others of near skill.
|
Okay I read through the first page, and as none mentioned this, I thought I'd contribute. Imho, the MAIN reason for lesser players beating better players in SC2 is the map pool. All maps are relatively small, and you often times pretty much spawn in your enemy's face. The better player will almost always try to go for a macro game, as this is where luck is less of a factor, as every minute he gets a chance to prove himself, whereas the lesser player will try to go for as short games as possible, as there's less chances for him to screw up. With a tiny map this obviously turns into a big problem. I think the game is balanced and that cheese is not too powerful, however with super small maps, it's just not shown. Imagine 2 rax all ins on a huge map. I also feel like the game is alot more strategy based than BW, as players don't have to focus quite as much on the raw mechanics of the game, so a lesser player always has a chance to win if he has a chance to win if he uses a superior strategy. That's just the excitement with the game.
|
The game isn't perfectly balanced yet. And to make it worse, the maps are pretty bad in general.
Rain had a pretty solid early to midgame PvT build, no doubt tested against Tester and SangHo with success. The game currently rewards these builds too much, both against zerg and against protoss.
At the same time, the game seems to disfavour terran in late game on bigger maps like metalopolis and so on. This obviously creates an incentive for terrans to either win or make significant damage before late game. And so obviously that is what they do. Just look at how NspGenius, ST_Squirtle, NesTea and others were sniped (all of those three incidentally by Rain...).
GSL FINAL SPOILERS + Show Spoiler +MC was able to beat this due to being such a much better player. In the first two games he was really up against the wall but he remained calm and cashed in on Rain's mistakes to be able to win the games. Those games really, really showed the difference in skill level. Note however that the games were really close. Clearly something is wrong there.
|
The point has been brought up that it is generally easier to attack than defend, but I feel like this can be narrowed down to how much scouting has to be done by the attacking and defending player.
Let's say I am playing a standard game as Z. My Terran opponent is building 2 starports and has massed 4 banshees, however I still have only 2 queens. Since I have not scouted my opponent at all, many would agree that I deserve to lose the game here. BUT my opponent has not scouted me either. He has gone with a blind offense. If he arrives at my base and I have, 10 queens or something crazy, he can retreat the banshees, maybe expo, or start to create different units to counter what I am doing. Though we have both neglected to scout, the offensive scenario can easily lead to a quick win, while the defensive one does not.
Not saying there's any imbalance, just bringing up an example to think about.
|
On December 19 2010 01:20 Euronyme wrote: Okay I read through the first page, and as none mentioned this, I thought I'd contribute. Imho, the MAIN reason for lesser players beating better players in SC2 is the map pool. I'm lolling here if you think you're the only person to mention map pool. :S
But, to be fair, if there were a few large, resource-thin maps, we might see some differing styles of play.
Fucking Blizzard, how can they not be producing maps? If I was a professional game designer I could easily make one polished map per day... I don't understand it.
|
On December 19 2010 01:27 lowercase wrote: Fucking Blizzard, how can they not be producing maps? If I was a professional game designer I could easily make one polished map per day... I don't understand it.
You could make one decent map a day. Not one polished map a day, at least if you wanted different tones and play styles on them. You need to play test a map to see what you as the creator missed.
edit,
I can agree that the pace of map making is lower than it should be. Or at least that the popularity system makes custom maps impossible to get popular and into play for normal users.
|
On December 18 2010 23:30 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
These are ridiculous posts. Skill isn't defined by being able to win at games. That's clearly wrong, whether you want to look at the dictionary, or look at how the word is used on a day to day basis. If you win at tic-tac-toe, do you have skill? No. Your opponent was simply a moron. If you win at roulette, do you have skill? No, you simply got lucky.
|
|
|
|