Is SC2 Rewarding The Most Skilled Players? - Page 15
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
| ||
Perscienter
957 Posts
| ||
Starshaped
Sweden575 Posts
Once the idea that the game can be played in many ways sets in, you will quickly stop talking about "cheese" etc. A win's a win, a playstyle's a playstyle. L2P and stop whining imo. | ||
iSiN
United States1075 Posts
Gone are the days when you can pull 6 drones to stop a bunker rush. | ||
TheLonelyCarrier
United States36 Posts
To be honest I think there's just a completely different mentality in the two communities. I don't think Idra would have the same reputation in the land of David Sirlin and Seth Killian. I don't think any SF player could get away with saying "I don't play Ryu because I have self respect" without being accused of being a scrub. You are completely right here. It just doesn't fly. People who do anything that could be considered "bad manner" are severely looked down on and become kind of a joke to the community. As an example, Warhawk was a respected Guile/Rufus player until he literally stood up and walked away during his match with Buktooth at Super NorCal Regionals. He stood up and just walked away with 20% of his life left in front of a live audience. For better or worse, no one really respects him anymore. It's different in SC2. IdrA is not only still respected despite his shenannigans, it has actually made him more popular to a degree. I mean, there are a percentage of people who find it obnoxious, but people still respect and fear him. Perhaps this is because there are a strong contingent of people who feel, on some level, that his grievances are justified? If there were no one who didn't kind of agree when he says stuff like, "I don't play Terran because I have self respect." or "Imagine how different this match would be if protoss units actually cost money." then he probably wouldn't have any fans left. Obviously there are enough people who think it's at least somewhat justifiable righteous fury rather than just being a sore loser. | ||
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On December 20 2010 23:15 TheLonelyCarrier wrote: You are completely right here. It just doesn't fly. People who do anything that could be considered "bad manner" are severely looked down on and become kind of a joke to the community. As an example, Warhawk was a respected Guile/Rufus player until he literally stood up and walked away during his match with Buktooth at Super NorCal Regionals. He stood up and just walked away with 20% of his life left in front of a live audience. For better or worse, no one really respects him anymore. It's different in SC2. IdrA is not only still respected despite his shenannigans, it has actually made him more popular to a degree. I mean, there are a percentage of people who find it obnoxious, but people still respect and fear him. Perhaps this is because there are a strong contingent of people who feel, on some level, that his grievances are justified? If there were no one who didn't kind of agree when he says stuff like, "I don't play Terran because I have self respect." or "Imagine how different this match would be if protoss units actually cost money." then he probably wouldn't have any fans left. Obviously there are enough people who think it's at least somewhat justifiable righteous fury rather than just being a sore loser. Well... if IdrA stood up and walked away during a match in front of a live audience he would lose all respect too. | ||
w0mble
United Kingdom27 Posts
| ||
DND_Enkil
Sweden598 Posts
On December 20 2010 23:27 w0mble wrote: Isn't rushing/all-in a bit like a serve/volley player in tennis? Yeah, but i have never heard anyone come out and say that a serve/volley-player in tennis is worse than his opponent even if he wins decisively. They might say that baseline players are more fun to watch, even go as far as to try to adjust the rules in favor of baseline-players but better players? Never. Hell, some of the great tennis players of all times frequently used serve and volley, Federer still employes it on occasion on grass i belive. But mostly due to the new rackets making it easier to hit the return it is getting rarer. | ||
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On December 18 2010 22:35 TheLonelyCarrier wrote: If the best players would win anyway, there would be no need for an actual tournament to play it out.I have detected an on-going trend within our community of feeling that the best players are quite often, not the ones winning. You don't need to be the "best player" (how to determine that?) to win, just to play the best games. If a strategy is easy to execute, yet powerful, it is a good strategy. If you can bring down a player which was considered the better one, his fans should reconsider: Why did he let it happen? | ||
skipdog172
United States331 Posts
On December 19 2010 03:57 Bijan wrote: I just want to point out that If you look a the Code Rankings (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/GSL_Rankings#Current_Ranking), almost all of the top players have been in all three GSLs. If that doesn't point out that the best players consistently do well then I don't know what does. QFT. People here are acting like the "best" players/teams always win in most sports. That is just so completely wrong. You see this in every single team/individual sport. Just like ANY OTHER SPORT, the top players are finishing at the tops of tournaments consistently. No, the "best" team/individual doesn't win every single game/tournament. At times, they get OUTPLAYED, just like sc2. I've yet to watch many games where one player wasn't capable of NOT making a game-losing mistake. Sometimes it is a scouting error. Sometimes it is a micro error. Sometimes it is a positioning error. I just don't understand most of the posts here. Those that lost to early cheese, lost because of how they handles it. I never saw a game where the loser never had a chance to win. They either micro fail or scout fail. | ||
Clerseri
Australia150 Posts
So now we're looking at the degree of chance. Starcraft, due in large part to it's incomplete information, has a larger degree of chance than games like chess and Street fighter. But it also has less chance than games like poker, which have incredibly high amounts of unknown information. Yet even in a game like poker it's possible for your skill to give you an edge. So then you define success and skill differently - the higher the randomness, the less of a win %age you require to show your skill edge. A 60% SF winner is not the same as a 60% starcraft winner, or a 60% poker winner. And there's no problem there. Aside from randomness, there's also a great deal of depth in starcraft. Not that there isn't in street fighter, but the way it manifests itself in starcraft may well have more temporarily powerful tactics. So in SF, you might find that (this is hypothetical) you can repeat a certain combo and that normal defences don't work against it. So you could go into a tourney and get a whole lot of wins against 'better' players, even someone like Daigo, because it's unusual and there's no standard defence to it. Then everyone online starts doing the same combo series and for a few weeks, all over the internet, fellow nerds are doing the same combo. Then suddenly, someone works out that if you perform a certain move at a certain point it breaks the combo. Suddenly that strategy becomes obsolete and the 'good' players rise back up to the top. So even though the 'best' players were losing, the community still acknowledged that their fundamentals and understanding of the game made them BETTER PLAYERS than those who were beating them. They had better zoning, better dexterity, better yomi - it was just a particular tactic that for a while didn't have a known standard defence. Ok - so this doesn't happen so much in SF. But in Starcraft there are so many different timings, and so many different openings and combinations of units that until the game has had years of constant playtesting they will keep coming up. These early pushes will either have solutions found by the community or will be patched out, and those players considered 'good' players will rise up, and those relying on the cheesier strategies will sink back down. That's why people can comfortably say that a losing player is 'better' than a winning one. Also, it might be rarer, but there's no doubt there's similar situations in SF. Think of Sirlin's 30-odd low strongs in a row - if your opponent doesn't know how to beat it, you can force a win even against a better player. If I beat Daigo with some similar strategy he couldn't work out the answer to in one match, noone would begrudge you saying that the worse player won. | ||
Rabbitmaster
1357 Posts
| ||
nihoh
Australia978 Posts
| ||
BushidoSnipr
United States910 Posts
So no, SC2 is NOT rewarding skilled players. | ||
TheGiz
Canada708 Posts
Simply put, Macro players can't handle the early pressure of All-In players, and All-In players can't handle the long game. (I often joke that most Terrans can't play games over 8 minutes. They crumble after their 3Rax fails because they are so used to it succeeding.) What basically has to happen is Macro players have to learn to defend against these plays and force the game to go long. This is funny because All-Ins exist due to the very reason that they are hard to defend. (i.e. Try misplacing your Force Field while defending a 3Rax push and see how that works out for you.) Similarly, if All-In players want to win games, they'll have to learn to play the long game too. This is again funny because an All-In has no contingency for failure, it is meant to win now or never. This is why even the pros sometimes can't stop cheesy All-In plays, and those that All-In don't always recover (not for lack of skill but due to the nature of the move itself). I don't know whether this is a sign of good or bad balance, but constant patches from Blizzard are welcome in my opinion, if only to change up the game. Nerfs to Terran have slowed Reaper Rushes and Bunker Rushes, but things like Roach Rushes and Cannon Rushes and 6pools seem here to stay. | ||
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
On December 20 2010 23:27 w0mble wrote: Isn't rushing/all-in a bit like a serve/volley player in tennis? Serving and volleying take infinitely more skill than 4 gate or the marine/banshee/SCV rush. | ||
Flarefly
United States3 Posts
On December 18 2010 22:35 TheLonelyCarrier wrote: Who, if anyone at all, is going to be responsible for resolving this growing rift if it's not going to be respected pro players? The closest I have seen is day9, he always comes to the table with the least bias imo. He also isn't in the thick of things as you mentioned earlier, he is mainly a commentator/analyst of sc2. It seems like most players respect his advice also, Huk even thanking day9 at one point for some help he had given him. Not sure how long it will take to get someone of day9's caliber to come about, or if it will even happen. It would be cool to get more people analyzing games like day9 does, but it seems rare for someone with that much experience and skill to focus more on the community aspects of the game than playing the game pro. Hopefully this is what you were looking for with the last question in your post :-) | ||
Perscienter
957 Posts
On December 21 2010 01:23 TheGiz wrote:3 Roach Rushes could be nerfed by making the Roach Warren require a Spawing Pool, but just imagine the outcry of Zergs everywhere if that were to happen. ? A roach warren DOES require a spawning pool. | ||
CaptainFwiffo
United States576 Posts
Let's take a look at some other sports. In baseball, getting a 65% winning percentage in the regular season is a dominating performance. Only six teams have done better than 70% in the last century. Only half of those went on to win the World Series. During most of his career, Tiger Woods has been the most dominant player in golfing history and was the favorite to win at any given event. Yet he's won only 28.4% of his starts - which is a record. Even if you look at games where there is no chance element, and perfect information, you don't see that kind of dominance. Garry Kasparov was probably the best chess player in history, but even he had something like a 70% win rate (yes, I realized draws make it a little bit apples-to-oranges). This is in a game that has had centuries of study. The performance of Go players is similar, and people have been working on cracking that nut for at least 2500 years! Occasionally a prodigy will show up and completely dominate all rivals (e.g. Paul Morphy in Chess, Honinbo Dosaku or Huang Longshi in Go), but that's usually a consequence of them having a fundamentally more advanced understanding of the game than their contemporaries, to the point of radically changing the game for the generations that follow. It's probably not possible to maintain that kind of dominance in most games in the information age. Given that SC2 is only a few months old, and is a game of imperfect information, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to be at all like Street Fighter. | ||
epik640x
United States1134 Posts
Unfortunately I don't feel like SC2 has the clear cut gameplay where the more skilled person will always win. SC1 was way ahead in those terms. | ||
| ||