This Is How Fast Korean Starcraft Players Are

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

bhaberle

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2008
159
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]ubernoobie[/nom]i've already known this, my friend averages 300apm during starcraft competitively. I get around 60 and we both enjoy it, btw my friend is not asian, hes white and has better apm than my korean friend that plays WoW[/citation]
Ok... good for you.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Of course, folks saying that Starcraft is a clicking contest know nothing about the game. Rerouting a unit comes solely from Starcraft's terrible pathing. every reclick is a recalculation of the unit's pathing. Spam happens, but only early game, while the actual pros keep an Effective APM (as in, APM when you factor out repeated commands on the same unit, selecting buildings without doing anything, etc.) of about 250-300.

However, for the laymen about, the best way to think of APM is like running speed in basketball. Yes, if you're miles faster than the guy you're playing. It helps a whole lot, but skill will factor more in your ability to play than your running speed.
 

crus_russ

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2010
26
0
18,580
0
I agree with the other people on here who say this is a poor game design in as much as a high APM is required to be competitive.

I played a lot of Company of Heroes online and I think with many of the units Relic did away with this style of RTS play because many other factors came into play rather than simple "kiting" (kiting was sometimes important, e.g. with light armour dodging bazookas):

- A good cover system whereby units in green cover take considerably less damage (Like 10% damage to bullets), but can be raped by flame (double damage). So this means the korean spammer can click all he wants but if you have a MG in heavy cover it is going to annihilate his bunch of soliders.

- Supression system, whereby units can be slowed down or even pinned if they come under fire. Meaning that you have interesting mechanics like a flammer unit trying to flank an MG in heavy cover, but if the MG spots the flammer he will be pinned at a distance and unable to close in on the MGer.

- Momentum of units, so vehicles and infantry take time to change direction, stop and start running/moving again. So changing a units plan mid way through their movement has a slight penalty. Againt his penalises a player for poor scouting.

etc. etc. etc.

There are too many things to list. Anyone who has played COH will instantly understand what I am talking about. That it was I was so disappointed when I played the SC2 beta because it was SC1 with newer graphics (that are barely anything special anyway). Blizzard hasnt added in any of the interesting RTS mechanics that we take as standard in modern RTS'. SC2 will be "Scout, If enemy has X, Spam Y". Forget cover, forget flanking, forget territorial based pop caps (the more land you control the more units you can make).
 

mkrijt

Distinguished
Oct 28, 2009
34
0
18,580
0
Well, they obviously miss the point of gaming: fun. It doesn't seem like he's having a good time, just trying to keep his fingers out of a knot. I'll stick to my 15 APM while having a good laugh.
 

BloodyIron

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2007
9
0
18,510
0
If you actually sit down and watch what he's really doing you'll see that he is duplicating commands for no real gain.

There are times APM can change a battle, but only if you use it wisely. It's no guarantee you'll win.

The game can only go so fast, units can move only so fast. Increasing your APM doesn't mean you attack any faster or move any faster, just makes it so you can instruct things quickly. As such there is always the possibility to outsmart your opponent, and what really matters is results, not APM.
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
1,549
0
19,730
0
[citation][nom]averagejoe_1984[/nom]This is the problem with RTS games. Assuming roughly equivalent knowledge of game mechanics, he who has a faster APM shall win. To make RTS games more appealing, game companies should try to make them more like chess. They should try to make each move more important and less tweakable my quick changes in commands. Perhaps making unit movement changes less relevant to the outcome of the battle, but instead making longer term movement and attack choices more important. Its an enigma how you get a realtime strategy game to encourage strategy over speed. The first game to do it well will likely be a hit. Supreme Commander went in this direction, but the developer never polished the game to completion. Its still the closest example of what I am trying to explain.[/citation]
What about a game like Sins Of A Solar Empire?

I also second the Total War series as being a more strategic play style. I'm still playing Rome: Total War.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Again, speed is simply a means to an end, and to say Starcraft has no strategy pretty much screams "I have no idea what I'm actually talking about, but I'm gonna say it anyway." Company of Heroes is fine and all, but with all of the mechanics thrown in, it STILL doesn't scratch the depth of strategy required for Starcraft at a high level. In fact, the high APM requirement for the pro level is why its pro scene has lived for so long; You physically cannot do everything you need to, and therefore have to prioritize on thing over another, not entirely unlike chess (But don't get me wrong, Chess is on a whole 'nother level from Starcraft in depth). Do a little research, then criticize, please.
 

widcard

Distinguished
Jul 24, 2007
10
0
18,560
0
Omg..... What does this do for them in real life after they grow up? Yup i got no job or money i can't move my hands any more but back in the day i could sure play the heck out of that game.
 

crus_russ

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2010
26
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Kibibt[/nom]Company of Heroes is fine and all, but with all of the mechanics thrown in, it STILL doesn't scratch the depth of strategy required for Starcraft at a high level.[/citation]

What on Earth does that mean? SC is a game with LESS mechanics and the way to get a competitive advantage is not to use STRATEGY but to issue more orders and process more updates than the other guy.

So you are saying, develop a game with less/simpler game mechanics and rely on having a difficult micro experience to make the game hard and hence competitive? That doesnt sound fun.
 

kibi

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2010
6
0
18,510
0
No, I'm saying that sophistication doesn't equal depth. Anyone who believes there is no strategy, or even LESS strategy in starcraft clearly have a very shallow understanding of the game. Also, Starcraft is like a lot of things: Fun if you're willing to put in the work, and even fun when you're messing around. Don't get me wrong, Starcraft is not for everyone. That said, even IMPLYING that it's inferior to a rather bland game like company of heroes in depth, strategy or anything but learning curve is ridiculous.
 

kibi

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2010
6
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]widcard[/nom]Omg..... What does this do for them in real life after they grow up? Yup i got no job or money i can't move my hands any more but back in the day i could sure play the heck out of that game.[/citation]
Sadly, nothing. If E-sports collapses, the folks in it aren't going to be in the best positions, constantly lagging behind their peers with college degrees. This is one of many sad truths about the Korean progaming scene.
 

crus_russ

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2010
26
0
18,580
0
You didnt actually respond to my argument.

This isnt COH vs SC, i am not saying SC is inferior or not a good game because clearly lots of people like it. I am saying its competitivness comes not from having depth of strategy (I mentioned many game mechanics that COH uses to add strategic flavour, you have offered nothing to support your SC opinion), but from having a "difficult to master but extremely important micro" component.

Another example is in COH you can decide in game to spec your army along 3 different doctrines (decision can only be made once in a game). So you can specialise for instance between land, air and arty, or another race can spec between offensive speed, defensive or disruption. This means each army has 3 ways of fighting with unique game mechanics and units for that doctrine.

Dont get me wrong, I WANT SC2 to be amazing. I loved SC1 in the day, but since COH I realised sadly what it is missing.

I suggest you try both games before posting if you havent because your opinion is rather baseless with no support. I am willing to be proved wrong if you can supply a valid argument.
 

kibi

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2010
6
0
18,510
0
Well then, let's clear up some terrible misconceptions about starcraft first, because your question is indeed a loaded one. The primary point of all of my arguing is to try and clear the stupid myth that starcraft is a clicking contest, first and foremost. My mentioning of Company of Heroes is simply because it's probably the most common "Starcraft is a clicking contest, here's a real strategy game" example folks choose.

Secondly, to answer your question about the strategic depth, here goes:

Firstly, Each race is vastly different, a fine way to exemplify this is to note that in the professional scene, there are no random players, despite there being no provisions against it (and indeed, in the early years random players existed, much like SC2 now). This comes from the fact that each racial matchup is unique in and of itself, leading to 9 matchups to learn in general, with very little overlap between the two in thought processes, unit compositions, pace, and general ideas.

Another major facet is the massive role in the game played by economy. all things related to your economy and the use of the money you get from it are called Macromanagement. Macro is huge, in that it's a system with simple rules, but with a complex and constant effect on the game; Workers are some of the most crucial units in the game, making worker harassment, constant worker production, and ample base defense plans big deals in the game. This is admittedly APM heavy, but if that were all you had to do in the game, anybody could do it.

Unit control, or Micro, is another major part of the game, and it's not as simple as just controlling the groups with the limitations of 12 unit selection groups, but micromanagement tricks, positioning, map considerations, spellcaster control and spell placement, all of which has a fairly low room for error. It's in fact the ease with which you can mismicro a unit that makes the game exciting and unpredictable even after ten years. Again, if that were all you had to do, the game would be simple. (A fine example of a game that does so is Warcraft 3, though the depth of it's micromanagement is at the very least equal to Starcraft's, much to some fanboys' chargrin)

Then we throw in other big factors, such as scouting, decision making, the armor system that is much like starcraft itself in that it is simple and extremely effective in it's depth in context, and playing for or against game trends.

The worst part of everything I said above? I massively simplified each aspect, and if I were a more diligent person, I could write you entire articles surrounding the endless rabbit hole that is starcraft strategy.

 

kibi

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2010
6
0
18,510
0
Also, I retract my mild vitriol when talking about Company of heroes, as It makes it sound as if I hate the game. It's just a conditioned response to a terrible argument that happens over and over and over again. If only because "Starcraft is a clicking contest" is an arugment fostered by people unable to ford the learning curve, which then turns into a bit of blame gaming, as if those people that are beating them aren't outthinking them, just outclicking them. They don't know more about the game than me, they're just doing things faster. All of that is flat out wrong, but it's so widespread that it's frustrating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Barnsley242 Streaming Video & TVs 5
A Streaming Video & TVs 3
O Streaming Video & TVs 5
R Streaming Video & TVs 1
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 14
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 16
L Streaming Video & TVs 2
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 35
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 13
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 11
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 53
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 27
G Streaming Video & TVs 29
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 50
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 70
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 25
G Streaming Video & TVs 17
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY