|
On December 21 2010 05:09 TheGiz wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yeah although SoW has a stupidly short rush distance, it still is an okay map compared to some of the other maps, for instance its easy enough to take a third (a must have for a map) unlike some maps, such as BS
|
On December 21 2010 06:30 texmix wrote: 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.
Maybe in NA, but in Korea and Europe to an extent, progamers are able to support themselves with sponsorships and tournament winnings. If it's possible there, it's possible here, meaning that the skill gap is big enough for full flung pros to thrive.
|
The reason SC is different from SF is that SF is a completely open game. You know who you are playing, tendencies, and the entire moveset of the other character. You know the frame windows and what to do.
SC is more of a hidden game. You still know the possible moves the opponent can make, but it isn't readily obvious what they are doing or are going to do. This is why scouting is so important, but even scouting can be fooled by cancelled buildings, or buildings hidden well enough.
It's like you seeing the opponent jump, but him not really jumping. Your reaction to his "jump" leaves you vulnerable to what he is really doing. This is why lesser skilled players can take games off of better skilled players. If Daigo couldn't see his opponents character, he would have a harder time winning games even if the opponent couldn't see his either.
Having said that, if you extended the build orders, the better player would eventually start winning, and start winning consistently.
|
The OP is clearly a fanboy of Daigo Umehara. Yes, Daigo is a legend, but his win percentage isn't as impeccable as he makes us believe. There are a lot of pro sf players that can beat him, also he doesn't win every tournament he attends.
|
The best player is the one that wins. Is the game in an ideal state? No, far from it. Does Blizzard need to make balance changes and adjust the maps? Yes
This is all based on a period of time. Some players are winning right now with a style that probably won't be viable in the future. That means they may not be a consistent player, but right now they are the best.
Just because people are upset with the state of the game, doesn't mean that the players winning right now aren't the best players currently. If they weren't better than their opponent, then they wouldn't have won, period.
A large part of any RTS is adjusting to the current trends in game play, and taking advantage of any strategy or style that's going to help you win. The best players are going to be able to do that, it's a significant part of the game.
|
On December 21 2010 15:12 fnaticAugury wrote: The best player is the one that wins. Is the game in an ideal state? No, far from it. Does Blizzard need to make balance changes and adjust the maps? Yes
This is all based on a period of time. Some players are winning right now with a style that probably won't be viable in the future. That means they may not be a consistent player, but right now they are the best.
Just because people are upset with the state of the game, doesn't mean that the players winning right now aren't the best players currently. If they weren't better than their opponent, then they wouldn't have won, period.
A large part of any RTS is adjusting to the current trends in game play, and taking advantage of any strategy or style that's going to help you win. The best players are going to be able to do that, it's a significant part of the game. Can you really call the player who calls the coin flip correctly the "better player"? The problem isn't that SC2 rewards a skill set that we aren't happy with, its that SC2 allows luck to give weaker players a decent chance of winning.
|
On December 21 2010 14:50 Cranky- wrote: The OP is clearly a fanboy of Daigo Umehara. Yes, Daigo is a legend, but his win percentage isn't as impeccable as he makes us believe. There are a lot of pro sf players that can beat him, also he doesn't win every tournament he attends.
Lol to this. I can't even try to hide it. I LOVE The Beast!!
But seriously any time he loses it becomes like a huge news story. I can only think of 2 times since SSF4 came out that I know of where he lost a Bo3 or Bo5. Him and EG Justin Wong fought to a draw during the premier event, but he was using Guile and not his main (Ryu). Arturo Sanchez ALMOST did it during the Salty Suite Invitational on the saturday night of EVO. The only people to actually do it were FilipinoChamp and EG Marn to my knowledge and they are both super top tier players.
I may have missed a loss, possibly two. But the integrity of my original point stands. Daigo cannot even be challenegd by some guy who is highly ranked in on-line play. That is 99.9% win for him. The only people who even come close are the other super top tier players, and he beats them at least 85-90% of the time.
EDIT: Lol. I just watched the year end edition of Cross Counter (a popular SF web show). They counted down the biggest game changing things in the entire scene of SF in 2010. Number 1 was that Daigo could be beaten, as he dropped 4 BO3's in singles tournaments this year. So I was right, I missed a couple of losses. But him actually losing was such a big deal, it was considered the biggest game changer in the scene all year.
|
No no and no, look at MC's scbw record and u'll know y.... incase u dont know, his scbw name is IrOn
|
I think that as the game progresses, a clearer distinction between the top and the lower levels of play will emerge, and so will certain people that seem to be considerably above other. We're not at that level yet, SC2 simply hasn't been out long enough for that to happen. I don't follow the SF scene but I can only assume that Daigo didn't emerge as the best immediately after the release of the game.
Also I think the point about SC's unpredictability and the lack of knowledge of what your opponent is doing plays a huge part in this issue. The reason DTs work is that people didn't scout them. If SC was SF and you could see what your opponent was doing, DTs wouldn't work. But as it is in SC discovering what your opponent is doing is a direct result of your scouting, not knowledge that's readily available no matter what. This aspect of the game won't change, as that's just the way Starcraft works.
|
You wrote that post beautifully, and I just want to congratulate you on that.
|
On December 21 2010 04:44 Hawk wrote: Yes. You don't consistently win without skill.
TSL_Rain doesn't approve that.
|
On December 18 2010 23:06 composition wrote: hidden information: Starcraft Poker
complete information: Street Fighter Chess
actually this is not 100% correct, in SF you have current and past complete information, but not the future in SC you have to scout to get those current and past information, but after that you can predict the future based on the intel you gathered
for example, in SF you know that the opponent is standing there with a full Ultra and Super gauge, but you wont know when or if he will use them and the advantage is on the opponent while you must react when he finally decide to use them. Though the more skilled player will know how to bait them using fake/etc to make the future less unpredictable
in SC if you scout your opponent and see him have 6 drone and a spawning pool, then you know that 6 ling are coming your way soon and you can react accordingly, same when you scout 2 refinery and a starport with tech lab attached then you make detector asap
|
It's painful to see you guys discuss imaginary numbers. As far as I know no one gave the exact win percentage of Daigo, and to be intellectually honest we'd need his win percentage from 4month after the release of SFIV. I don't think anyone was dominating at the time.
What I do remember, is that there was an ocean of mediocre Sagat players who constantly did well in tournaments. Eventually the matchups were figured out, and now they are not even remembered. Which is exactly what will happen to Rain.
As for the "any high rank player can beat Nestea online" argument, there were a lot of people showing videos of themselves beating Daigo...
|
On December 21 2010 17:17 sandyph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 23:06 composition wrote: hidden information: Starcraft Poker
complete information: Street Fighter Chess actually this is not 100% correct, in SF you have current and past complete information, but not the future in SC you have to scout to get those current and past information, but after that you can predict the future based on the intel you gathered for example, in SF you know that the opponent is standing there with a full Ultra and Super gauge, but you wont know when or if he will use them and the advantage is on the opponent while you must react when he finally decide to use them. Though the more skilled player will know how to bait them using fake/etc to make the future less unpredictable in SC if you scout your opponent and see him have 6 drone and a spawning pool, then you know that 6 ling are coming your way soon and you can react accordingly, same when you scout 2 refinery and a starport with tech lab attached then you make detector asap
I'm glad someone said that. You have better information of what your opponent is doing in Starcraft compared to SF. In SF any move can be countered, but you constantly have to guess what he's doing. There's a lot more randomness involved IMHO.
|
Why are we comparing SC to other games?
The sole goal in SC2 is to win. Thus, the best player is the one who wins the most.
Take a look at Flash. He, like some Terrans in SC2, was hated at first for cheesing: he cheesed Bisu out of the OSL one year and many fans and people in the community hated his play and thought it was boring, that he was bad. Boxer, likewise, was known for his bunker rushes and his marine micro. Foxer in SC2 is known for his marine micro and aggressive 2 rax bunker play as well; how does this make him a bad player? If he's winning, then clearly the onus is on his opponents to play better or figure out a counter.
Nothing is wrong or backward in the SC2 scene right now. People are just too impatient; innovation and change takes time, and it's also possible that SC2 will turn into a lower economy game overall because of all the changes, particularly to mechanics and early game units. Even things like comparative unit sizes, clumping, and formation make the game different. For example, now lings are much weaker vs zealots because the pathing AI and the clumping of units is different.
|
No, it isn't rewarding me.
|
On December 18 2010 22:35 TheLonelyCarrier wrote: 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. With two expansions yet to be released, I consider the current state an extended beta phase.
Blizzard tries to stabilize the current gameplay and then will see what can they add to make it deeper. Both SC1 and WC3 were not too good for multiplayer before we had the expansion.
On December 18 2010 22:35 TheLonelyCarrier wrote: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. I think, we will. There is no real competitor game on the horizon which possibly could dethrone Starcraft 2.
|
This is a classic example of a thread with 5000 different arguments going on at once. Everyone has a different goal in mind when it comes to what we should be discussing.
To answer the question directly. If we define skill as "hand speed, co-ordination and strategic understanding" does SC2 reward the player with the most skill? Well yes with enough games played the most skilled player would win more. There's a lot of conditions to that such as race balance, map balance, how many games you have to play to remove the luck factor etc... Each of those things are many threads of discussion.
|
Not sure if this has been brought up already, but it's quite obvious why you virtually never see top players lose to lesser players in SF: the competition format and game settings don't allow it happen often.
In a SF tourney, competitors typically play best-out-of 3 games, each game being best out of 3 rounds. This means the winner needs to either win 4 or 5 rounds to advance, out of anywhere from 4 to 9 rounds.
Furthermore, in SF, you can't lose the entire round off a single mistake. Earlier games in the series yes, but not in SSF4. There are 100% combos against Seth, but the probability of that occurring is virtually 0. If you're behind, you can always make a comeback. There is no direct disadvantage from having lower health other than being close to being KO'ed; in fact in SF4 your defense increases and so does the strength of your Ultra.
Given all those things, it's very difficult for a noticeably inferior player to win in SF. The better player has so much time, and so many opportunities to learn the opponent and use his/her superior skill to win. Great players will lose rounds and games to worse players, but not the match.
Compare that to SC2, where matches are normally best-out-of 3 or 5 games. A build order mistake in the first 5 minutes can kill you. And if you're behind, both your offense and defense suffer.
If SF tourneys used a single best out of 3 game, along with 200% damage and no ultras, then the two games would be comparable. Or for SC2, matches are best-out-of 7, and every game starts at the 9 minute mark, with both players having an expansion.
|
MarineKing doesn't do all-ins (Except for the GSL 2 Season Finals). How is being able to micro the most basic unit of a certain race NOT skill? Can you do what he actually does? If you don't know how he plays, go watch those VODs. SC2 rewards MarineKing for his excellent micro and makes the unit a.k.a marine look so imbalanced.
IdrA can macro like a god when he needs to, but his decision making isn't the best out there. Does he actually belong in the GSL Ro64? I'm sure there are many out there who can macro as well as IdrA, and have better game sense and decision making, but they are not there. SC2 is basically just rewarding him for his good macro. I personally believe that IdrA has no right to say about others and should change his freaking attitude. Know his own place.
In SC2, good decision making counts, so the more skills you are, the more you should be able to win games because you can hold off many kinds of strategy people throws at you, INCLUDING ALL-INS AND CHEESE. Since IdrA QQs about such stuff, I doubt he is the most skilled player out there. Even MarineKing said that he never liked to all-in, and that he prefers just bringing attacking units. Now that's what I call skills.
Then again, the best players out there can make a mistake and leave openings. That's why inferior / less skilled players are able to pull something out of their magical bag and win against such skilled players. This happens in many games, and is not new. So, on the overall, SC2 is rewarding the most skill players.
|
|
|
|