Is SC2 Rewarding The Most Skilled Players? - Page 16
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Zog
57 Posts
| ||
Wesso
Netherlands1245 Posts
On December 21 2010 03:37 Zog wrote: When people say the game is not figured out, do you mean that players don't know how to defend against all-ins ? they mean people don't know the best safe build orders yet, they are either too safe (so if the opponent doesn't all in you fall behind) or not safe enough so you lose to all-ins. I'm not saying these builds exist, but personally I think the builds aren't optimal yet | ||
QuanticHawk
United States32009 Posts
| ||
Perscienter
957 Posts
On December 21 2010 02:31 epik640x wrote: SC1 was way ahead in those terms. To a normal person, scbw was just an apm fest. The macro with Zerg was just ridiculously annoying. | ||
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
| ||
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
Maybe the issue is defining skill? | ||
TheGiz
Canada708 Posts
On December 21 2010 04:56 Treemonkeys wrote: outside steps of war, which is already universally agreed to be a bad map. Don't get me wrong, Steppes has its problems (rush distance, air space), but I find that it is a pretty decent map (layout). As a macro player I am consistently able to play long games on Steppes, control the map, and win vs. all-in style players. | ||
gongryong
Korea (South)1430 Posts
On December 18 2010 22:45 klauz619 wrote: 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. errr... what abot to someone like Ssak and Classic? xd seriously, yes, there seems to be too many variables in the game right now that the levels have not really been established. is the game broken, though? after GSL 6/7/8 maybe and semi pros still manage to beat top players consistently, then SC2 needs to be reconsider some game mechanics, or perhaps we should reconsider who the top players are xd | ||
griMetone
Denmark57 Posts
| ||
tetracycloide
295 Posts
On December 18 2010 22:42 JinDesu wrote: He's saying the most skilled players should be relatively untouchable. Albeit in BW, Flash isn't completely untouchable, but he sure damn well comes close to be. That's not really true at all though. Even Flash has about a 75% win rate in BW. That's not untouchable. The odds of loosing a best of three are about 15% which is small but they're not astronomical. The odds of his opponent taking a match off of him in a best of three no matter who wins or looses in the end are about 44%. That's not small at all. Honestly I would see the best of the best being untouchable by more than a hanful of players as being a very bad thing for the sport of Starcraft II. One sided matches that are decided before they really begin aren't exactly entertaining. The best sports tournaments in the world are ones like the World Cup or NCAA basketball where the format and the rules of the game are carefully designed so that the best player doesn't always win. The purpose of a tournament isn't to decide who is the best player overall, after all, it's to decide who wins the tournament. | ||
numLoCK
Canada1416 Posts
Conversely, SC2 is littered with washed up BW pros, foreigners, and converts from other games. Your top SC2 player is not even close to the level of a JD or Flash. So to see one of these guys lose to Joe Diamond isn't all that crazy. And as it is, the game might allow for fluky wins quite a bit. But it will be even more clear once top gamers get into this game. | ||
TheLonelyCarrier
United States36 Posts
On December 21 2010 01:29 Flarefly wrote: 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 :-) Yeah, I agree totally, he is one of the only glimmers of hope I see. The problem is that Sean is just one person. Also, if these feelings in the community end up being due to something Blizz deems a systemic problem with the game that needs fixing, then no matter how positive an influence Day9 is, the ball will be in Blizzard's court at that point. But given that the only right way to patch a game is carefully and incrementally, one must wonder how long it would take for them to fix such a problem while avoiding breaking other parts of the game. And I get it, it took years for BW to be balanced to the point where it was perfect for competitive play so if we are worrying about this 5 months after release we are being short sided, I know. The difference is we don't have 4 years to get it perfect for competitive play. We had until late July, because the pro scene was pre-built and reay to go nearly from day 1. My concern is that if the community is devided and it doesn't get resolved relatively soon, either through patches (IF this is in fact even a balance issue) or through a pardigm shift in the community whereby people figure certain things out and agree upon what constitutes"skill", the games professional scene will flounder. I just don't want to see that. Its a great game and a wonderful community and I want to see it around for a long time. | ||
texmix
United States106 Posts
The original complaint is a bit like complaints that the World Series of Poker is never won by a known pro. If you want a known pro to win, increase the starting chip count from 10,000 to 5,000,000 with the same blind/ante structure. While a single hand of poker may be one of the highest deviations, the board game Go (pictured above) is the best illustration of a non-deviating game. Players receive a rank that is very closely tied to standard deviation chances of winning. A 7dan ranked player will beat a 6dan 68% of the time (1 standard deviation); a 7dan will beat a 5dan 95% (2 standard deviations), a 7dan beats a 4dan 99.7% (3 standard deviations), and a 1dan beating a 7dan is a slightly lower probability than winning the lottery. What is amazing is that there are a full 35 ranks in GO! This means we can conclude something like: Player 1 looks to player 2 with god-like status and will lose 997 out of 1,000 games, but player 2 will lose 99.7% of his games to player 3 who has a 99.7% chance of losing to player 4 who has a 99.7% chance of losing to player 5 who...all the way up to player 10 or 11. In starcraft 2 I suspect there are only 3 or 4 levels of 99.7% win chance skill like this. Something like a 200 point bronze will lose 99.7% vs a 600 point Gold who loses 99.7% vs a 1500 point diamond who will lose 99.7% vs the top player in the world (though obviously real numbers would have to be based on players MMR). If you modify the parameters to bo3 matches maybe there are 5 levels and bo21 matches maybe there are 7 or 8 levels. That is the only way to make skilled players win more tournaments. The question of balance issues or Marines being "broken" are important, but pales in comparison to this underlying principal. The question for Blizzard is if they want to have a community of professional gamers. In a way they may prefer high variance tournament winners (based on bo3 and bo5 matches instead of bo9+, and easy to hide hard to prepare for units/strategies) since that means the top 2,000 players in the world have a credible chance at winning the $80k MLG prize. If sc2 tourneys were lower variance and only the top ~50 players had a credible chance, there could be a pro sc2 scene (but maybe not as many sales of sc2). As it stands now, the only way to be an sc2 pro is charging for lessons and probably working a day job (or getting $ from mom and dad). Can't expect to do it on tournament winnings. Texas Hold'em was growing modestly, then exploded when the slightly overweight skilless Chris "Moneymaker" won $2.5 million at the main event in 2003. If a max cheesing, sub 100 apm, painful yet fun to watch player somehow made it to the MLG finals it could be a big boost for esports. Could also be stupid and cause a mass wave of depression and sc2 uninstalls. | ||
Perscienter
957 Posts
Two questions come into my mind. 1. What is the social function of variance (or chaos)? 2. Has Blizzard (or corporations in general, especially in the gaming software branch) an interest in introducing variance to the game? | ||
QQmonster
Canada240 Posts
the beauty of starcraft is both players are walking on a tight rope, and the first to fall off loses. nobody said it was easy but even the best of the best aren't good. in 10 years people will look back and say IdrA was a shit player compared to the gods of starcraft 2. If the game survives as an e-sport that long. | ||
TheLonelyCarrier
United States36 Posts
On December 21 2010 08:06 Perscienter wrote: It's interesting that you mention the relationship between a high variance and Blizzard's self-interest. Divide et impera. They won't severely reform the game. They belong to a profit-seeking corporation, which means that the educated community is politically ignored. Two questions come into my mind. 1. What is the social function of variance (or chaos)? 2. Has Blizzard (or corporations in general, especially in the gaming software branch) an interest in introducing variance to the game? Well, question 1 is a bigger question for a different thread (possibly a different web site) but as far as question 2 goes the only interest they could possibly have in variance is if it leads to their game catching on as an esport across the world. Reforming the game (if in fact it needs reforming) is actually in the best interest of the bottom line for them. Twelve years later, SC/BW continues to make money for Blizzard and the sole reason for that is the success and longevity of it's professional scene. That is why Blizzard has poured tremedous resources into making the SC2 pro scene happen, it's good for business. What won't be good for business is if after they spend the metric ton of money they have. the pro scene falls apart when people stop watching because they have a perception that it's a game of luck and abuse. Again, to be perfectly clear, I am not saying that it is or is not a game of luck and abuse. My opinion is categorically irrelevant to this discussion as far as I am concerned. All that is relevant is that the perception exists and not at just the uneducated laymen level, but at the enthusiast level and the professional level. The bottom line is that if variance emerges as a force that drives professionals to want to play it and spectators to want to watch and support it, then variance will remain. But if it becomes clear that a certain level of variance alienates players and fans, you would be foolish to think Blizzard won't do something to fix it. Them and their shareholders want this game to sell for the next 15 years. Believe that. | ||
Enigma_Nova
Australia21 Posts
For anyone not named "Flash", that's correct. Flash is an unstoppable beastly juggernaut who doesn't lose to anything. >2. In an appropriate percentage of situations SC2 rewards the more skilled player with victory? Most of the time, though we're still working out the timings and the relative strengths of the early pushes. Obviously you can't just build a defensive force for every possible push, because that sacrifices economy, and if your opponent FEs then you lose. On the flip side, if you play for Econ blindly, the early rushes can kill you. We're still learning exactly how to scout, and what information means, so we know when it's a good idea to expand, when it's a good idea to build defensive units, and when it's a good idea to push and apply pressure. On the whole, a skilled player is rewarded, but anyone with a toolbox of 3 unorthodox (but cost-effective) rushes has a chance of winning a Bo3. | ||
Asparagus
United States269 Posts
Prepare for something that never comes: you're behind Misprepare for something that comes: you're behind Prepare for something that comes: you're behind due to lack of drone production Misprepare for something that never comes: you're ahead because you blindly droned hard. SC2 is not like Mario Kart where if you fall behind you get a blue turtle shell, the playing field is even, It's not like if you fall behind in minerals there's a unit that can ignore saturation or anything. | ||
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
The map pool (and the maps) is too small, and too bad. Sc2 doesn't have a jaedong or flash, and new good players transfer from brood war and w3 into the scene all the time, making it very fluid, which to some might make it seem that the game doesn't reward good players. Sc2 is a game of incomplete information, thus making losses inevitable. The metagame and player pool is still so inconsistant, that unknown players will beat known ones. And that's what makes tournaments, and especially GSL so fun to watch. Imho it wouldn't be very interesting if the same like 4 people had ended up in the semi finals 3 GSLs in a row. | ||
251
United States1401 Posts
On December 21 2010 09:16 QQmonster wrote: the beauty of starcraft is both players are walking on a tight rope, and the first to fall off loses. nobody said it was easy but even the best of the best aren't good. in 10 years people will look back and say IdrA was a shit player compared to the gods of starcraft 2. If the game survives as an e-sport that long. Not really. When you think about how the builds have already evolved in SC2 compared to SC1's long history (and also thanks to SC1 knowledge), it's not going to reflect that initial 5 years of "omg look at these noobs who can't macro," waiting for iloveoov to come and completely break/change the game. If in 10 years SC2 is still widely competitive, Idra would still be a top player, he has the mechanics and will to do so. Not to mention there's no way to predict how the expansions will change the game, another reason there will be no comparison | ||
| ||