You will never be "good" at StarCraft 2
Posted on 29th Jul 2010 at 17:24 by Harry Butler with 85 comments
As we discussed in our StarCraft 2 review, and as you've confirmed in the comments, StarCraft 2's multiplayer is hard. Damned hard in fact. The difference in what's required from single player, which can be played at a fairly relaxed pace, to the multiplayer's hugely time sensitive unit spam fest proves a big challenge.
At the highest level though, StarCraft 2 is bound to become something almost unrecognisable from the game we've been fawning over this week. While high level FPS gamers differentiate themselves with reflexes and accuracy, top level StarCraft is often decided by APM - Actions Per Minute, and the best players are able to top 300.
As these Korean StarCraft players will explain, and show you with their insane, almost mesmerisingly fast play, the micro management required to succeed in high level RTS games such as StarCraft 2 is borderline ridiculous. Every worker, every individual unit, is being given unique commands, with the player aware of where all his units are on the map and what they're doing at any given time.
In the past, I've invested plenty of time at getting to a half decent skill level in a few strategy games. I play a mean Command and Conquer Generals and my friends long ago learnt to politely decline my requests to play Company of Heroes, but these are, in comparison to StarCraft sedate and manageable affairs. In Company of Heroes, you're handling maybe a dozen or so squads or individual units, but in StarCraft 2 you can be handling literally hundreds, and the best players will micro-manage the crap out of them to get the best results. Strategy is still important, but if you can't bring your APM up, you'll never stand a chance.
It's a frustrating situation, because getting your ass handed to you is no fun. Many RTS players are put off easily by early defeats and then never return to the game. It's not like an FPS where you can still play and gradually build up your skills. You might die a lot, but at least you respawn and get right back into the battle. In a strategy title like StarCraft 2 each defeat can take 20 minutes or more, and leave you none the wiser as to why you lost.
Will you be trying your hand at StarCraft 2's multiplayer? Are you an old StarCraft master? Or do you avoid playing strategy games online? Let us know in the comments.
At the highest level though, StarCraft 2 is bound to become something almost unrecognisable from the game we've been fawning over this week. While high level FPS gamers differentiate themselves with reflexes and accuracy, top level StarCraft is often decided by APM - Actions Per Minute, and the best players are able to top 300.
As these Korean StarCraft players will explain, and show you with their insane, almost mesmerisingly fast play, the micro management required to succeed in high level RTS games such as StarCraft 2 is borderline ridiculous. Every worker, every individual unit, is being given unique commands, with the player aware of where all his units are on the map and what they're doing at any given time.
In the past, I've invested plenty of time at getting to a half decent skill level in a few strategy games. I play a mean Command and Conquer Generals and my friends long ago learnt to politely decline my requests to play Company of Heroes, but these are, in comparison to StarCraft sedate and manageable affairs. In Company of Heroes, you're handling maybe a dozen or so squads or individual units, but in StarCraft 2 you can be handling literally hundreds, and the best players will micro-manage the crap out of them to get the best results. Strategy is still important, but if you can't bring your APM up, you'll never stand a chance.
It's a frustrating situation, because getting your ass handed to you is no fun. Many RTS players are put off easily by early defeats and then never return to the game. It's not like an FPS where you can still play and gradually build up your skills. You might die a lot, but at least you respawn and get right back into the battle. In a strategy title like StarCraft 2 each defeat can take 20 minutes or more, and leave you none the wiser as to why you lost.
Will you be trying your hand at StarCraft 2's multiplayer? Are you an old StarCraft master? Or do you avoid playing strategy games online? Let us know in the comments.
85 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyIt has nothing to do with obsession. You most likely have a job. When you do it, you probably work hard at it. That's what those guys do. It's their job and they're the best at it.
I still think APM is bullshit though
ditto.
That doesn't mean its not fun though for us average guys. Even when I lose a game I don't feel too bad because it means I need to improve. Whether its scouting more or timing expansions correctly or just increasing average APM and lowering unused resources I can see my skills increase. When I lose a 60 minute Dota game because one of my teammates was a feeder its a much more frustrating experience to me.
And, as far as I know, there is a ranked match-making system intended to balance the teams.
In the old SC, you had no idea whether your teammate was some kid who bought his first RTS game that morning, or someone ridiculously experienced at it.
Sure, the top 1% have essentially had a decade and a half worth of practice, but the vast majority are either picking up SC2 as their first experience with Starcraft, or have played a enough SC to be familiar with the carryover units, but aren't experts at it.
And, given a couple weeks, the latter two will be indistinguishable.
It's like basketball. It's a fun game which is pretty easy to learn the mechanics of. You can pick up the ball and just shoot some 3-on-3 hoops with a couple of your buddies, and have a great time. With enough practice, you could get pretty good at it, maybe play it on a school team, or join an recreational league.
But you will never, ever be as good as Lebron James. Lebron is playing a whole different game from you. Lebron could kick your ass with one hand tied behind his back.
But, in real life, you're never going to play against Lebron. It's his full time job to play basketball. He makes a ton of money doing it. He's not gonna waste his time beating some noobs on the basketball net in the park - he's going to play solely against players that are almost as good as him.
Just because you're not as good as him doesn't mean that you won't be able to have fun playing basketball with all of the other amateur players, or that you won't even be able to join a team and compete at it. You can play your game, and you can watch Lebron play his game on TV. Maybe you'll learn a trick or two from him, but the fact that he is so much more talented at the game than you doesn't make the game any less fun for either of you.
But at least playing the beta, it would be pretty even games where I steamrolled someone and games where I got smoked. Most were pretty intense battles, or won or lost because of how we went up or across the tech tree.
Nothing better than a 72 minute slug fest where the resources are gone and its anyones game. The ladder/league system was pretty effective in the beta and with the amount of people logged on last night (only played single since release) should work fairly well at keeping most people from getting totally screwed.
playing game is about having fun, and i think this is why Call of Duty series with their killstreaks made it so big. any player could be on a lucky killstreak and become top of the leaderboard, thus having bucket loads of fun.
RTS games such as Starcraft 2 will not offer anything fun at all, you can't go into this game and expect to win, it's a game purely designed for fanatics. unless you plan to spend ages on it, you really isn't going to get anything out of the game.
generals and age of empires is perfect for a slow paced war.. I hated sup commander though- it's way too slow
starcraft was always a little ocd =]
That video makes me sad.
As I said earlier, the guy in the video is making $200k+ a year and has an enormous number of fans in Korea. If you're going to say that then all professional sports players should learn something more useful am I right?
The first ever player to reach #1 rank in warcraft 3: The frozen throne with no losses had an average APM of 80-90.
His name was Qazzi I believe but went under the name of " io."
He wasnt a pro-korean gamer at the time either but became one of the greats purely for his accomplishments and beating insanely good players with low actions per minute.
It is possible.
yes.
like nursing, or firefighting, or policing.
Maybe that's coz you suck at them!
There's no greater thrill than outsmarting another person. Where's the fun in beating a load of computer code at a game of wits. If your idea of achievement is to beat a load of pre-programmed responses then it's probably best you stick to the single player campaign mode. Maybe you should turn the difficulty up to "Hard" and then you can be really challenged!
These guys are super-human, and can do things that the rest of us normal people could never hope to. People just dismiss it because they don't want to confront the fact that they can think and act far faster than us and we find it hard to come to terms with the fact that some one else is just plain better than they are.
I hope that SC2 turns out to be fun for players of all levels of skill, I'm certainly no pro-gamer myself, but do enjoy the challenge of pitting my wits against another person and seeing who comes off best.
I also don't think your avergae gamer should be worrying about APM. You should more woryy about doing the right actions rather than how many of them you can squeeze into a minute of gaming time.
Of course, my thoughts are that all professional sports are quite silly. Nothing like training a highly skilled and talented athelete to do nothing more productive than stick a ball in/through a net.
Do tell what field you work in that makes you so condescending. I guess it does't matter since you are quite obviously a huge idiot.
I am generally not a huge RTS player but I don't think being able to send 300 actions is crucial to being good in your public multiplayer game. You can still have have an average APM and do quite well since shock horror the game actually requires a superior strategy to your opponent to win.
Actually, in the high end, strategy kinda became moot, since all one needed at the point of being professional was just being faster.
This, pretty much.
Unless I can specifically play with friends, but still I find the many minutes investment in a game before losing feels like a waste of time. :(
Yeah I have seen some pro-level SC games and its ridiculously fast but I guess once you are at that kind of level peple know all of the standard strategies and counters. But I was restricting it to just jumping into public multiplayer game. It's not too difficult to get good against your standard players. It's no different to any other multiplayer game, just invest the time and you will figure it out.
That said, those Koreans are in another league.
Also razer mice suck... with the little abuse mine has received with a simple shooter, I highly doubt they are getting any amount of good life out of one with those crazy frantic OCD clicking-thons they are putting them through.
I'm completely the opposite. I can't stand playing a game and wait for the story to unfold or whatever. I want instant action, all the time.
Needless to say my gaming would suck if my internet were to be cut permanently tomorrow
I completely agree, but that doesn't happen in RTS.
I loved playing quake 3 instagib at 200% speed, but the servers were hard to find. I learnt how to avoid blinking for 10 minutes a match. :D
I never was a StarCraft player but I have been having a crapload of fun so far when playing with friends ! I am pleasantly surprised to be honest. Playing a 3v3 with friends on teamspeak is never boring and there is always plenty of action
Great investment so far
I hadn't even seen the Protoss yet and they were tearing down my defences. Also, the destructible parts of he cliffs were news to me (and subsequently how I quickly lost game two).
I'm not ready to give up though. It's all about finding a player who's at your skill level. If you don't have an even playing field, it's not a challenge for the victor and it's no fun for the looser. I don't play Harry at CoH any more for this exact reason. There is no point.
RTS games are where this effect is exaggerated the most.
More campaign and comp-stomp for me first.
Also, your choices are much more limited in an RTS than you realise. Basically you have to play as fast as you possibly can, or you will be left behind in troop numbers and tech trees, and that's just a fact of life.
I tried Age of Mythology back in day: I beat the SP on hardest difficulty setting but would constantly lose online because I play with an APM of about 30 - 50. I just don't find it fun having to play any faster, and no amount of clever strategies is going to make me competetive at that speed.
It just happens to be a very sad culture. I don't care how much money they get paid - if I was Korean I would be embarrassed. Hmm, I wonder why there are so few world class Korean athletes? Sorry, I can't see Starcraft catching on as a "sport" anywhere where people actually like to have a life.
Why is professional gaming any different from professional sport? Professional gaming is as sociable as professional sport: tournaments are played in arenas and teams practice together. Both contribute little real value to society other than money and enjoyment to the spectators. Even the health benefits of professional sporting compared to gaming is negated when you consider the number of sporting injuries professiona athletes suffer. You don't hear of Fatal1ty breaking his metatarsal.
I'll stick to "being able to survive" APM :p
Agreed. Unless it is a MMORPG. And even in those I prefer to solo most of the time when leveling. Makes the game more of a challenge. And when I get tired of that I just chat to my guild or join a random team for a bit. But largely playing against random noobs is of no interest to me. Would much rather go to a mates and play Soul Caliber IV.
Professional gaming is not a sport, just as darts and chess are not sports. Also, ask any health professional and they will tell you that the health benefits of regular exercise, which obviously includes sport, outweighs the risk of injury by some considerable margin.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not coming down on professional gaming per se. I admire John Wendel and guys like him, who can earn a living doing what they love. The difference is that Fatal1ty, Vo0 etc are idolised like megastars the way gamers are in Korea. I just think the level of obsession over an old pc game in Korea is rather odd.
Which is why a small LAN with friends beats onlinegaming in terms of fun.
Which is why the ability to play over network and not over internet is important.
which is why hamachi is so popular :D
Casual sport I agree is much, much better for you than casual gaming, but my argument is at a high-end professional level there's little to distinguish the two. The amount people revere Football players in this country (men who are paid millions to kick a lump of dead cow skin around a field) must seem just as strange to the Koreans as their love of SC players does to us.
But what health benefits? Athletes may be healthier than someone who sits on the couch all day eating potato chips, but they're not any healthier than someone who eats right and exercises regularly.
They abuse their bodies pretty bad. I'm sure they have all sorts of pain from hurting themselves in the game. They are very prone to injuries (not just from other players, but also from pulling muscles or ligaments by over-exerting themselves). The career is short, simply because you can't physically handle it for that long. How many pro athletes are over 35? It's too abusive for them to do that, except for certain positions (I've seen some pretty old baseball pitchers or football field-goal kickers, because they don't run and don't make physical contact with other players)
Many athletes have health problems later on. Right now, a huge issue in football is the concussions. Players suffering long term damage from hurting themselves. And you've got the whole steroids thing, some players use those to win, which are pretty bad for you (aside from being cheating).
Sure, someone who is a pro video gamer and never leaves the computer isn't as healthy as a pro athlete. Someone who is a pro gamer and does a half hour of moderate physical activity each day, and eats a reasonable diet is much healthier than a pro athlete. He's not tearing muscles, breaking bones, getting concussions, damaging joints, etc.
I second that!
Incomplete analogy. You play Football because your love for it is greater than the disappointment and loss of investment when you lose.
Take the love and optimism out it and bring the analogy closer to reality and it's a radically different situation.
For example:
I don't get to play for England, but I still like playing football on Sundays.
Compared with
I have no chance of winning in a game of chess because most people are much better at it than I. I don't really like Chess as a result.
Yea but Lebron is a straight up tool, while that Korean dude seemed like a pretty cool kid.
:D
-SPNKR
I read bit-tech on a partial window, sized so I only see the body of the post, not the poster info/av to the left, with outlook open behind it.
I read that post.. "He must be from Cleveland"
I scrolled over to check... yup.
:p
it's amazing how much blizz has put in to help both newbies and pros.
Because your crap? :o
That's where the true champions go.
Unless you mean to use "you're", in which case you might have a point.
(saving the world, one needless correction at a time)
But all together I'm terrible at RTS genres I'm terrible at micro, I'm terrible at resource management etc. Put me in an FPS annd within a month or so I can be at a low competitive level. I think RTS games appeal to a certain type of personality and mind, and have a much steeper learning curve.
I think competitive video gaming will slowly infiltrate the western world more. It is very big in europe (for FPS) I think the US is stuck in this mode where it's seen as an undesirable activity and a worthless pursuit, not compared to the likes of chess etc so hence it doesn't get a lot of respect. Also certain games are much more spectator friendly. IMO super smash brothers melee, quake, counterstrike and a few other games are extremely spectator friendly easy to pickup and watch and understand what's going on.
looking at wow competitions and a few other games it's really hard to tell and know who's winning unless you have intimate knowledge of the game. I mean I played wow for years and competed in the highest dollar tournament there was and still thought it was confusing and boring to watch.
And in 3v3 or 4v4 with your mates, it is fun no matter if you win or lose. There are no 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 tournaments that pay big so people dont spend so much time learning it. Thats why its better for the casual.
They are too fast. Damn! my apm is probably like 6!
I feel that with RTS's, they are fun until you realize that every round is waayy to long, there are way to many things to keep track of, and ect. When I play games, I dont want to think hard, I just want to sit back and relax. Thats probably why Im bad at gaming though....
I take this as a personal attack so thanks Bit-Tech for telling everybody!!
As far as the gamers in the video, they may whoop me in Starcraft 2 and I wouldn't even care because they will get arthritis before I would with that 300 apm crap.
Actually I find FPS have exactly the same problems.
I disagree that enjoying playing / watching Starcraft is sad, just because it's a computer game. It's like a combination of chess and boxing - you have to absolutely outthink your opponent like in chess, have a strategy to put your pieces in the right place to beat his pieces - but timing is critical. Attack at the wrong time and his counter attack will wipe you out, attack when his guard is lowered and you will win the game.
Nobody ever claimed that chess or boxing were sad.
Also I think the most critical element to getting on with the game if you are a newcomer is learning basic opening strategies (like chess!). If you are just messing about with your first few units in your base, he is going to have his barracks up and men coming when he realises you've not done anything yet.
but wen i see this and after 2 years linux and no games I just feel far from able to win i dont make my self illusions of being able so im not even gone try.
and i also have a life / work and friends offline but respect for these guys that they can remember so many moves en execute so many
Yup...let a newbie play against a few people from a (mediocre) CS-clan.
It's pretty boring getting headshotted within seconds of spawning for hours on end. :D
This is such a cliche.
a) - you don't have to dedicate a huge amount of time on gaming. I've gotten pretty decent picking up DotA again, after a month of just randomly playing a game or two once I get home from work before I eat dinner. Match-making and singleplayer will give you a better learning curve.
b) - not everyone who is good at games has no lives. I work full time and take night classes. I play "Battleships Pro" like once a week, and dominate. Easily a 10:1 KDR. Do I dedicate my life to it? of course not. I've just been playing it casually for long enough that I've gotten really good at it.
You're really good at Day of the TentAcle? Wow :D
I say people will do whatever they're either good at or whatever brings them joy. Those who find both are truly lucky.
There's no justification to make assessment calls about the level of good or bad on what other people decide to do with their own lives.
Settling the topic of "Is it a sport?" - Webster's Dictionary shows one definition of sport to be "That with which one plays, or which is driven about in play; a toy; a plaything." So, yes, it can indeed be a sport. Case closed. Move on already.
(Even though I usually won't make direct comments to individuals on forum posts - especially those purposefully causing agitation, but.....)
People who insult others just to feel better about themselves are the truly embarassing ones. Especially when when they're pompous enough to make judgement calls about entire cultures. Please tell us what exactly it is that you do at your job where your life is so much more enriching and rewarding compared to others. I want to know what job is truely good enough to justify being able to make such extreme judgement calls on the lives of others.
What are the going to do when the zombie apocalypse happens?
Command robot soldiers. Duh. You can't bite steel.
Clearly, the military trend is to use more and more unmanned combat systems, controlled remotely. Video game players are the perfect candidate for it.
I mean, just look at how well UAVs have... taken off
YEEEEEAHHHHHH!!!!!
*sunglasses*
I think both of your analogies are silly and naive. Thats not the point of sports or esports.
The correct reasoning to chess, starcraft, and football are all:
I play with people of comparable skill level, and i win about as much as i lose, so a constant struggle keeps the game interesting while a solid win rate keeps me interested.
The new ladder system operates by trying to get every player at a 50% win rate: if you are higher it will pair you against better opponents untill your win rate is at 50%, and visa versa. All this drama about losing every single game you play to 300 apm players is ridiculous. Im currently ranked 12 in diamond division with an average apm around 100 and a crisis apm of around 140. Thats really not a lot.
I also find Bit-Tech's response to e-sports disappointing.
Wow. Really? Who are you to say the pro korean athletes have more worth culturally than pro korean starcraft players? Why do you equate being a pro gamer with not having a life? What the hell gives you that right?
These people practice 10 hours a day and are paid 6 figures. They have the the dexterity of a lifelong musician and the strategic prowess of a chess grandmaster. They pull in tens of thousands of spectators internationally to watch them play. Dont be a pompous, assuming ass. Dont insult what you choose not to understand. Even if you dont like it, objectively there is clearly something other than simple gaming going on here; respect it.
Sorry, i didn't make the begging of my post very clear.
What i meant to say was that the reasoning that was given behind not playing starcraft, and then the analogy given for playing football were both far off the mark and were a littly goofy.
What i think is the real reason behind doing any of these things is what i posted: that we play competition to play against people of comparable skill levels and win a good amount of the time. No one plays a sport and compares themselves to Lebron james; thats not why you play the sport. It may be fun to think about, but it has no impact on one's play or love for basketball.
Im arguing the same thing for startcraft. You must be out of your mind to compare your starcraft skills or APM to nada, or any other S-class player. Nada's apm has no impact on the average person's love for starcraft.
One more small note. The article and the interview make a bit of a misstep. There is a HUGE difference between effective APM and literal APM. As you can see in the player's demonstrations, much of their actions are redundant. It helps if you have a starcraft knowledge, but if you dont just pay attention their left hands; they select the same control groups repeatedly to give the same orders.
You dont need 250+ apm to win games at a high level, you need 100+ well placed and thought out apm to win games. Its not about the speed for most of the time, its about how you use it.
I brought up the Lebron comparison... did you actually read my post before dismissing it as far off the mark and a little goofy?
You criticize my example, then you immediately follow it with a paragraph that completely agrees with my example.
Here it is again.
Altron, i was agreeing with you. In my first post, the quote that i was responding to was taken from Joe's post, not yours.
I fully agree wiht you : D
It's all a matter of standards. I play high level Diamond league here in America (currently Diamond rank 3), but I'm sure I would get destroyed in Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't even make it into Platinum.
So while being "good" at Starcraft 2 might be hard in Korea, its downright easy here in the US.
Not necessarily. Although Korean SC players are undoubtedly the best, Korea still has a relatively smaller amount of players compared to the USA. The chances of meeting a world class player in Korea is much higher than meeting one in Korea, hence why it seems easier to move up the ranks in the USA.
Personally, after AoE2, I became absolutely garbage at almost all RTS's, CoH being the exception. I didn't even bother picking up SC, knowing I'd get a can of whup ass every other game. That being said, people get discouraged only when they meet decent players several times in a row, and that itself can be a huge coincidence. You need to give it some time. Most people,. after putting in some months playing a game, don't get better at it, and they get extremely discouraged to pick up any kind of game in that genre (RTS. FPS., etc.). Then they see players like the ones shown in that video above, and regardless of what people may tell you, those same people get frustrated that they'll never be as good as all those world class players.
You need to realize that you won't be good at everything. I know people who were just awesome at CS:S, but average or bad at CoD4. Play to your strengths. But at the same time, you need to put in time for anything. Don't play a couple of games and /quit.
let me stop you right there
You dont need to fight the interface as much in starcraft 2, macro is much easier, but very fast paced.
150apm will take you VERY far in the game if you understand your decisions and know what your doing.
I could coach ANY low league zerg or maybe toss up to platinum easily with a couple hours of going over the basics of macro and learning 1 or 2 build orders. Hell, even diamond if they can understand a little strategy and think while playing.