Is Starcraft II one of the most demanding "modern" skill based game?

[kyrax12]

By modern, I mean it is basically still somewhat new.

 

[Rinaun]

I'd say starcraft is really strategic, but it relies more on memory in my opinion. It reminds me a ton of those DDR style games that throw directions at you and you have to match them at lightning speed; koreans somehow seem to master those as well.

I'd take a guess and say games like Civ can be incredibly skill-based at a high elo, same with some shooters like cs:GO and COD.

 

[blastingcap]

UI and AI tweaks would make the game easier for normal people, but the game designers have made it so that micro-managing, massive actions per second/clickfest, etc. are rewarded in an artificial attempt to raise the "skill ceiling." Even if you have a strategic and tactical mind, the sheer amount of clicking involved is a huge barrier for most people. They also artificially constrained the FOV unlike other games where you can zoom out, sometimes all the way out to planetary levels, which makes it even more infuriating to control. It's still fun to watch, though.

 

[Skurge]

UI and AI tweaks would make the game easier for normal people, but the game designers have made it so that micro-managing, massive actions per second/clickfest, etc. are rewarded in an artificial attempt to raise the "skill ceiling." Even if you have a strategic and tactical mind, the sheer amount of clicking involved is a huge barrier for most people. They also artificially constrained the FOV unlike other games where you can zoom out, sometimes all the way out to planetary levels, which makes it even more infuriating to control. It's still fun to watch, though.

I would disagree partially. The game has moved on past where players with high APM could get away with that alone. If you can get the minimum APM, strategy or tactics can carry you through.

But I do agree that even that minimum is hard to reach for most people, SC2 is not chess. But all competitive games are like that.

 

[Snock514]

Yes.

 

[blastingcap]

I would disagree partially. The game has moved on past where players with high APM could get away with that alone. If you can get the minimum APM, strategy or tactics can carry you through.

But I do agree that even that minimum is hard to reach for most people, SC2 is not chess. But all competitive games are like that.

I'm not saying that high APM can carry players, I'm saying that even if you have the mind for it, the sheer amount of clicking means that you must also have high APM or that will limit you. And Blizz could have helped with that, by programming better UI and AI, like having less micromanaging of spellcasters, or allowing broader FOV, or streamlining production. But Blizz also knows that high-APM micro is what separates amateurs from pros, so Blizz left in a ton of micro in the game.

 

[JumBie]

God its a great game, but if you cant hit keys and multiple keys and different patterns of keys within a certain time span you are more than likely not going to make it anywhere. I played the shit out of it, made it to platinum and couldnt get diamond for the life of me, I couldnt react fast enough. I mean i knew what to do and how to do it, just my fingers couldnt map out the keyboad that fast. My multi tasking was sub par.

 

[Grooveriding]

I would think so. It's one of those games where the skill disparity is so large that you will get utterly destroyed and never, ever beat a player that is much better than you.

The only other game I've seen that in is Counterstrike. In CS an excellent player will lay waste to average or bad players. The dynamic is different though with it being a much more team oriented game compared to SC2's 2v2, 3v3, 4v4.

 

[Lil Frier]

I maintain that CS:GO cheats on accuracy to make it hard, rather than using realism. I've never been one to do the CoD spray-and-pray, but even controlled bursts from 10-15 feet away are highly inaccurate in that game. It's overly-punishing, I think.

I'd personally pick games like LoL and DotA as the hardest, at least for me. They are the ones that have WAY to many intricacies and character options and all of that for me to grasp well. The mechanics are rather clunky, in my opinion, but some like them. They're the genre of game I struggle to pick up on, though.

 

[Lonyo]

I'm not saying that high APM can carry players, I'm saying that even if you have the mind for it, the sheer amount of clicking means that you must also have high APM or that will limit you. And Blizz could have helped with that, by programming better UI and AI, like having less micromanaging of spellcasters, or allowing broader FOV, or streamlining production. But Blizz also knows that high-APM micro is what separates amateurs from pros, so Blizz left in a ton of micro in the game.

They did do all of that, compared to SCBW certainly.
And some pro players have sub 100apm average and do well. Higher apm is usually helpful, but not entirely necessary, and having high apm doesn't mean you can do well either.

And if they removed too much, people would equally complain about it all being dumbed down. Someone will complain either way.

 

[TridenT]

I maintain that CS:GO cheats on accuracy to make it hard, rather than using realism. I've never been one to do the CoD spray-and-pray, but even controlled bursts from 10-15 feet away are highly inaccurate in that game. It's overly-punishing, I think.

I'd personally pick games like LoL and DotA as the hardest, at least for me. They are the ones that have WAY to many intricacies and character options and all of that for me to grasp well. The mechanics are rather clunky, in my opinion, but some like them. They're the genre of game I struggle to pick up on, though.

I'll agree that the accuracy part is punishing, but it's not COD where you can run and gun with 100% accuracy and seriously take out everything while still running. That was one reason I was so damn good at that game. I could easily run around and fucking annihilate whole teams while still running. It's pretty ridiculous. CS:GO is punishing in that if you move and shoot, it's almost never going to hit unless you're using a P90 and get a lucky spray. Try it with an AK or Negev and you'll never hit anything. That's pretty realistic. My biggest complaint with CS:GO is the registry. It's broken as hell and has been for so many years. They really need to fucking fix that shit. The game is fundamentally flawed when the engine is shit.

StarCraft 2? I don't know. It's demanding in the sense of you need a ridiculously high APM and just have to basically spam the shit out of your keyboard all the time. Most of the time, it's not tactics but just a matter of how good you are with a keyboard and mouse and timing.

I don't like the game because it's so multitask oriented. Rather than focusing on a general strategy, I have to constantly micromanage a huge amount of things. Similarly, it's all about timing... and getting the timing perfect. You see games where it's literally about making that second base a second or two late that can throw the whole game. I think that's pretty stupid.

 

[Lil Frier]

Like I said, I've never used the pray-and-pray tactic, even in CoD. I played the first Black Ops on 360 with the Target Assist off and still did well, though I left it on in the second because I rarely play it (meaning my skills aren't what they could/should be), and the 360 is overly-punishing if you turn the Target Assist off (relative to when you have to fight some idiot with it on up-close).

Other than an Assault Rifle on Halo, I've played most every shooter with a burst mentality. I was playing the CS equivalent of CoD's Gun Game (I can't remember what they call it), and it was a pain in the butt. I'd stand completely still, crouch, then burst, and I'd get MAYBE 3 hits from a clip. I was about 15 feet from a guy, went through a whole clip (burst for some of the clip, full-auto for some), and when I died, it said I had no hits on him. I don't care how reckless you are, if the reticule is on the guy the whole time, you shouldn't miss with a whole clip from 15 feet away.

Remember that we're supposed to be experts with guns in these games. Instead, CoD acts like we are robots, while CS:GO hits the other extreme, treating us like we're blindfolded and shooting at darkness after being spun around for a game of in the tail on the donkey.

 

[blastingcap]

They did do all of that, compared to SCBW certainly.
And some pro players have sub 100apm average and do well. Higher apm is usually helpful, but not entirely necessary, and having high apm doesn't mean you can do well either.

And if they removed too much, people would equally complain about it all being dumbed down. Someone will complain either way.

I suppose that may be possible in some cases, if you define "pro" loosely enough, but look at the pros who actually win major tournaments and they all have sky-high APM, in part because Blizz wants it that way to give greater separation among pro gamers.

I believe Day9 (a commentator and highly skilled SC2 player) said once that it was literally impossible for a top player to lose to someone obviously lesser-skilled in SC:BW, but that in SC2 that's changed somewhat because a few things have been streamlined from SC:BW to SC2, such as the ridiculous 12-unit limit of SC:BW. But there is still a very high amount of micro-management in SC2, and thus there is still a very high skill ceiling in SC2.

Btw SC2 is still among my favorite games to watch.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

UI and AI tweaks would make the game easier for normal people, but the game designers have made it so that micro-managing, massive actions per second/clickfest, etc. are rewarded in an artificial attempt to raise the "skill ceiling." Even if you have a strategic and tactical mind, the sheer amount of clicking involved is a huge barrier for most people. They also artificially constrained the FOV unlike other games where you can zoom out, sometimes all the way out to planetary levels, which makes it even more infuriating to control. It's still fun to watch, though.

This is why I much prefer the overlooked game Sins of a Solar Empire. It offers deep and complex strategy and tactics, and it's a great game for online multiplayer PvP, but it is not an APM-based clickfest. It's a shame that so few people who play RTS in online multiplayer PvP know about the existence of that game.

 

[kevinsbane]

This is why I much prefer the overlooked game Sins of a Solar Empire. It offers deep and complex strategy and tactics, and it's a great game for online multiplayer PvP, but it is not an APM-based clickfest. It's a shame that so few people who play RTS in online multiplayer PvP know about the existence of that game.

I do, and I'm not much of a fan of SoaSE. Haven't tried the latest iteration though.

 

[Majes]

I maintain that CS:GO cheats on accuracy to make it hard, rather than using realism. I've never been one to do the CoD spray-and-pray, but even controlled bursts from 10-15 feet away are highly inaccurate in that game. It's overly-punishing, I think.

I'd personally pick games like LoL and DotA as the hardest, at least for me. They are the ones that have WAY to many intricacies and character options and all of that for me to grasp well. The mechanics are rather clunky, in my opinion, but some like them. They're the genre of game I struggle to pick up on, though.

LoL and DotA are the some of the easiest games out there and have the lowest skill gap between pro players and completely new players. That's why they are slowly pushing out more difficult games like Starcraft, and why DotA was probably more popular than Warcraft 3 ladder back in the day. Anyone can pick up on it and compete.

 

[clamum]

I'd say Wargame: Airland Battle would take more skill than StarCraft II if we're just talking about RTS-type games. There's no need to be able to do a million clicks a second in Wargame, it's all tactics and strategy. But it depends on what you mean by "skill." I guess being able to click insanely fast is a skill, so yeah.

 

[Spidre]

For skill, definitely. What's unfortunate is there is a TON of strategy and knowledge that goes into mastering the game, but 99% of people never reach this level since everything from bronze-masters is 90% mechanics.

I'm high masters with random, and when I look at pros play, I can tell there is a higher skill disparity between me and them compared to bronze player and me. It's so ridiculous the amount of scouting, reacting, mind games, and build knowledge that goes on in a pro game. Most of which, many people would not see or notice. One example would be build priority. A pro will scout a piece of information, and subtly change his build to better suit it. Take a worker of gas at a certain time to change the speed he acquires tech, ect. Always making sure to have the exact amount of money for buildings/upgrades when they need it, and not making anything they don't absolutely need.

One of the biggest things I've noticed is watching players in diamond-grandmaster makes the game look hard, where pros make the game look easy. If you ever had the chance to see Stephano play back in the day, you could see what I'm talking about. The way he played looked so basic, simple, and honestly not that fast. It's only after the game that you would see that he maintained 250+ apm, and had more army at the 10 minute mark then I could manage in a 15+ minute game.

The real appeal to me about SC2 is how many ways you can play it. "Spam APM" doesn't exist apart from the first 2 minutes of a game. Once you go past 1 base play you literally can't have enough actions to control everything effectively, and this is exactly where the bulk of the strategy comes from. You need to make the decision of where to spend your APM; and this is where pro players really break apart from everyone else. It's also what makes ranked play so great. You get to play to your strengths. A fast player will be able to stress another's multitasking and attention, where a smart player will be able to achieve more with less actions (preventing a drop is easier then stopping an unscouted drop).

MOBAs have aspects of RTS mechanics, but fall short in one category, multitasking. With only one unit, your attention will be centered on your hero, and the action that you can see offscreen. While you need to maintain map awareness, you will never have to make the decision of which conflict to focus on; since there is only one hero you can control. There are obvious exceptions, but they are rare.

If they did make the game easier, or the UI more friendly, at what point do you stop? Should you be able to put buildings to auto build units? Should you have a split action that will auto split your units? Maybe some things could be used to make the game more basic, but doing so would take away what makes the competitive scene so unique.

 

[magomago]

skill
skil/Submit
noun
1.
the ability to do something well; expertise.
"difficult work, taking great skill"
synonyms: expertise, skillfulness, expertness, adeptness, adroitness, deftness, dexterity, ability, prowess, mastery, competence, capability, aptitude, artistry, virtuosity, talent More

Nowhere in that definition does skill require twitch or fast response. Some of the responses implicitly conflate 'skill' with 'fast response' .

That said, I think that SC2, within the category of games that require fast response, is a very skillfull game.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

yeah except adroit, deft, and dexterity are all synonyms.

Please define "the most demanding modern skill based game".

SC seems very similar to age of empires to me. Eco boom, scout, build, expand at fastest possible rate all while trying to pay attention to what the enemy is doing. Yes it requires skills. So does Wii dance revolution and a game of online chess.

Apples and Oranges? Both are fruity. Maybe Farmville is the best? I so prefer to virtually grow things than in real life. Wait what was the question again?

 

[Rinaun]

Nowhere in that definition does skill require twitch or fast response. Some of the responses implicitly conflate 'skill' with 'fast response' .

That said, I think that SC2, within the category of games that require fast response, is a very skillfull game.

I think you are 110% wrong. Skill is implied in the task itself. You are using your mouse and keyboard at a higher level than other users. Having a higher APM is skill. Having a faster reaction time is skill. Drawing your gun faster in a duel is having more skill. It's the same as if this was a typing game and my WPM was higher than your WPM; that would imply I'm more skilled than you in typing.

I agree with the SC2 part though. I view SC2 as something akin to playing blitz chess. If you make a move that is bad, 9/10 it's a huge struggle to recover unless your opponent makes an equal mistake. There are some new strategies used but for the most part I see more pros lose SC2 matches from careless screwups that they themselves call out.

 

[TridenT]

I think you are 110% wrong. Skill is implied in the task itself. You are using your mouse and keyboard at a higher level than other users. Having a higher APM is skill. Having a faster reaction time is skill. Drawing your gun faster in a duel is having more skill. It's the same as if this was a typing game and my WPM was higher than your WPM; that would imply I'm more skilled than you in typing.

I agree with the SC2 part though. I view SC2 as something akin to playing blitz chess. If you make a move that is bad, 9/10 it's a huge struggle to recover unless your opponent makes an equal mistake. There are some new strategies used but for the most part I see more pros like SC2 matches from careless screwups that they themselves call out.

A faster reaction time is not a skill. That is a trait. A lot of what you listed is a trait and not a skill. A skill is something you can learn. A trait is something that is inherent. What separates olympic athletes from you is that they not only train very aggressively but also have inherent traits that make them better. Same can be said about some pros.

 

[Rinaun]

A faster reaction time is not a skill. That is a trait. A lot of what you listed is a trait and not a skill. A skill is something you can learn. A trait is something that is inherent. What separates olympic athletes from you is that they not only train very aggressively but also have inherent traits that make them better. Same can be said about some pros.

Uh, so what you are saying is someones reaction time is a trait? It's obvious/proven that people doing the same thing over and over repetitively (drag racers doing drag races, people doing pistol draws, etc) their ability to do these becomes faster. I know the drag racing part is true because I've personally witnessed beginner drag racers and NHRA pros improve times by just "playing" more. It's called honing the skill of whatever task is involved; in this case, reaction time and driving ability. Trait is more aligned to a characteristic....IE someone has the trait of being a generous person. Skill is something that you acquire over time and practice. Reaction time is not a trait feature. If you think it is......I guess we agree to disagree. That's not how I was taught in college. Traits are more aligned towards personality dispositions, descriptors (hair color, gender). I've never ever heard someone describe reaction times or typing skill/keyboard usage as "traits".

trait: a distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person.

Again, Skills are tasks you can do well, whereas traits are features of your character.

EDIT: Yeah I'm almost positive reaction time is a skill not a trait. The components of skill-related fitness are agility, balance, coordination, power, reaction time, and speed. It's fitness, but I'd still say it fits it more than saying people have differing levels of reaction time. Also: http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/stats.php

 

[TridenT]

The last sentence I said should have stopped you from writing all that but it didn't. Read it again.

 

[Ventanni]

Whereas in SC1 micromanagement and APM ruled the roost, sound decision making and strategy is what wins you games in SC2. APM is still very important but like the above posters have stated, it's the decisions you make and area of focus you place with your APM that matters the most.

Stephano was amazing to watch back in the day. I still remember the Lonestar Clash Polt vs Stephano back in March 2012. Hots hadn't been released yet, but my goodness was that an epic display of talent. There's something to be said about pro players who bring out all their tricks at premier level tournaments that's spectacular to watch. You get to see strategies being incorporated that up until that match wouldn't be seen because the players don't want to give away their strategies. I absolutely love watching it, and yes, they make it look easy!

Right now I'm really enjoying watching bits of Terran mech being incorporated into TvZ and TvP gameplay. Thors are being used to keep mutalisks at bay in TvZ matches, and I'm actually starting to see siege tanks being used in TvP matches to help hold off blink stalker rushes. It's definitely made the matches more interesting to watch, not that I was getting tired of watching it lol...