|
On September 12 2010 08:41 UdderChaos wrote:What? Did you not just watch the OSL final? Where finally Brood war was basically shown to be broken? Osl final spoilers: + Show Spoiler +Jaedong has to cheese every game because flash is unbeatable/imba end game, and that protoss is clearly the underpowered race in BW. This OSL basically proved BW is broken, jeadong and flash play the game near enough to perfect(grated not perfect but near enough) to prove that terran end game is basically imbalanced and that a zergs only chance against a player as good as flash is to stop him 14 cc'ing, plus its broken that a failed 4 pool puts you behind but a failed bunker rush puts you ahead. Also jaedong and flash have proved that the lack of early scouting in sc1 basically makes it a dice roll as you have no idea if the opponent is cheesing and some cheeses/openers beat others flat out, so there's an element of randomness in it. The only reason that that quality of games arn't as good is because the standard is lower, i mean Idra was a good B-teamer at best at a game he'd been practicing for years, with practice partners who were better than him who could teach him and experienced coaches, in sc2 hes at least a A teamer if not S class atm despite the fact he's newer to sc2 and has no-one good to practice with and no experienced coaches to help coach him. I don't think people realize that it's the quality of players rather than the game itself, but i will say the game ofc is not perfect, but after the 2 expansions the game should be at least as complex as broodwar and as fun to watch.
Not gonna discuss that here but that's just completely wrong on so many levels I wouldn't even know when to start.
|
back in the beginning of progaming bw, it was just like this
|
On September 12 2010 03:42 Tsagacity wrote:
At least back in 2000 Boxer's play was impressive, even if it was still heavily flawed. Right now it's very hard to be impressed watching sc2 games =/
On September 12 2010 03:17 Xeris wrote:
Your problem is that you only started watching BW in its prime. Ever watch BW games from 2000? Watch Boxer destroy Blackman in WCG with microing 7 marines and 1 medic because the level of play was so bad that his godly micro could win games. People sucked donkey shit at BW until 2005 because people hadn't figured out how to really PLAY the game yet.
SC2 is not even 2 months into release and you're griping about the quality of play. Relax
THIS. Every time there is a "SC2 matches disappointment" thread, I always say something similar to Xeris. SC2 is still a young game, but the progress of leagues, tournaments, players, etc is growing at a steady rate at least. Too many people are spoiled by BW because it has become a legendary old game with a great history of players and matches. SC2 hasn't even gotten a big gameplay patch (soon to be building time on reapers/zealots/etc) yet besides minor things for single player or just hardware issues.
I have fun watching SC2 matches and it may not be as impressive as BW yet, but the game's balance is good so far. The only thing that annoys me is the whole ball vs ball army movement, which looks ridiculous and funny.
|
Switzerland2431 Posts
On September 12 2010 08:41 UdderChaos wrote:
What? Did you not just watch the OSL final? Where finally Brood war was basically shown to be broken?
Wow. Just wow. You sir, should be stopped.
Give SC2 some time. Why the rush? Right now, games are a bit eh-ish though i agree.
|
5003 Posts
I honestly think SC2 is boring because of the maps and the ridiculously short rush distances.
My favorite part about BW was the map control and splitting the maps, and using economic harass to end the game -- SC2 seems to have a lot less of that, and, even if it does have it, it's not as exciting for some reason. It's not as... insane multitasking wise on BW? I guess that's because the players skill levels in SC2 are a lot lower for now.
Either way, there's a long way to go, imo, before SC2 even becomes watchable before my eyes. But honestly I'm giving SC2 a lot less time than BW -- it's not like our knowledge of how to play an RTS, knowledge of what makes BW exciting has been forgotten and people should, at least, adapt faster.
|
On September 12 2010 09:36 Milkis wrote:
I honestly think SC2 is boring because of the maps and the ridiculously short rush distances.
My favorite part about BW was the map control and splitting the maps, and using economic harass to end the game -- SC2 seems to have a lot less of that, and, even if it does have it, it's not as exciting for some reason. It's not as... insane multitasking wise on BW? I guess that's because the players skill levels in SC2 are a lot lower for now.
Either way, there's a long way to go, imo, before SC2 even becomes watchable before my eyes. But honestly I'm giving SC2 a lot less time than BW -- it's not like our knowledge of how to play an RTS, knowledge of what makes BW exciting has been forgotten and people should, at least, adapt faster.
I agree greatly with all points. I'm giving it time, but the bar and precedence is there, it would be disappointing to not make use of over a years of rts progaming excellence.
Aside from map control play, small maps makes big ball too good (small map+mbs/autorally makes reinforcing easy). If you try cute guerilla tactics, you split your force, and they will have a bigger ball at your front door in no time. This favors ball v ball, or turtle v ball a lot, probably a bit oversimplified but generally is the trend I see.
|
On September 12 2010 09:36 Milkis wrote:
I honestly think SC2 is boring because of the maps and the ridiculously short rush distances.
My favorite part about BW was the map control and splitting the maps, and using economic harass to end the game -- SC2 seems to have a lot less of that, and, even if it does have it, it's not as exciting for some reason. It's not as... insane multitasking wise on BW? I guess that's because the players skill levels in SC2 are a lot lower for now.
Either way, there's a long way to go, imo, before SC2 even becomes watchable before my eyes. But honestly I'm giving SC2 a lot less time than BW -- it's not like our knowledge of how to play an RTS, knowledge of what makes BW exciting has been forgotten and people should, at least, adapt faster.
On September 12 2010 03:15 teekesselchen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2010 02:29 ohN wrote:
Comparing the OSL final with the IEM germany final, BW >>>>>>>>>> SC2 in its current state.
I feel blizz did a really good job with SC2 in regards to the design and gameplay but a lot of their balance decisions are questionable. Haha I rather think it's the other way, their design decisions make it crappy to watch. Some examples? -Adding strong T1.5 units which can end games quickly and limit the amount of possible tactics -High Air-Ground damage on low tech levels (Banshee/Voidray) which can end a game easily. Especially Voidray, one voidray can end a game in a flash. This prohibits many tactics. -Unspectacular micro compared to Vultures/Lurkers and other units with high damage output skills (Lurker needs burrow so they have to use a skill to attack). Micro is mostly beeing cut down to positioning, hit and run and focus fire. That's NOT spectacular. -Zerg became kinda one-dimensional less complex race with less possibilities -Low collision sizes make micro less spectacular once again and make battles end in no time, that's not nice to watch. The reason simply is that more units can move into attack position faster, so rather than 40% of each armies fighting and 60% beeing blocked (makes it a long fight), every unit can attack at the same time and battles end in a few seconds.
these posts sum up a lot of what makes SC2 such a bad spectator sport to me. I feel like besides a little harass in the beginning, after the 1st big battle 80% of the time the winner of that wins the game (either immediately or shortly after). There's no high ground advantage so the defender has very little advantage (if at all), outmacroing never really happens because macro is so easy that both players macro perfectly at all times, and when you combine that with the small maps and fast rush distances with easy rallies, I've rarely even seen games where a player loses the 1st major engagement and doesn't lose the whole game.
maybe eventually there will be micro that is exciting in the game (and allows a player to come back from a disadvantage with good micro) and the maps won't be as shitty, but I feel like there are just some fundamental flaws (macro too easily master-able and no advantage for defender with high ground mainly, as well as many points named by teekesselchen) that will never allow SC2 to be a very good spectator sport compared to BW.
However, I specifically like the GSL! They have two good commentators, offer a free stream and show partially really good matches and players. Of course we cannot expect them to be way better than us already, since the game is too young for that... The progamers have to learn as well.
I think everything which makes GSL worse than Broodwar are Blizzards crappy design decisions.
how can you list "offers a free stream" as a good thing? every stream is free!
|
On September 12 2010 02:18 ziz wrote:
So who else is rather disappointed by the quality of GSL?
In addition, I think it’s ridiculous to say how they say players are playing “bad,” when they admittedly acknowledge game is premature and anything can be good or bad (or is it that whatever they think good is good? No.).
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me!
Let's not forget that the Korean practice method involves practicing the ever-loving crap out of a strategy. This works best with standard strategies. I'm personally tired of the casters saying "this build is standard". No, it's just popular, but there are many other variations that are just the same, if not better, than the one being used. I think it will be months before true standards emerge.
For good BW go watch the OSL finals. I think you'll find what you're missing there...
|
I think it's ridiculous to compare SC2's progaming scene now to BW's progaming scene now. Yea, the games might not be as spectacular or as crisp as the BW pro games, however, BW pros had 10 years of history, building upon previous pro gamers over time to get to where they are now. SC2 is a baby compared to BW. To a degree, the skillset learned from BW can be translated to SC2, but there's so many new shit they have to get used to, it'll inevitably take time to merge those two mechanics together.
And to the people that say the things now aren't as "smart" or "unique" as the plays of the early 2000 players (aka. Boxer), well you know why? Because you guys are so used to the level of top notch BW players. Anything "new" played in SC2 will seem tame compared to it. You need to give SC2 time and give the players time to establish and perfect their BOs and mechanics. However, maybe SC2 games will never excite you as much as BW games did, just for the simple fact that BW did it first.
|
Watching cool aka fruitseller play against that protoss on scrapstation and micro his lings incredibly definitely gave me geek chills. All I have to say is give the scene time.
|
5003 Posts
On September 12 2010 10:11 Servius_Fulvius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2010 02:18 ziz wrote:
So who else is rather disappointed by the quality of GSL?
In addition, I think it’s ridiculous to say how they say players are playing “bad,” when they admittedly acknowledge game is premature and anything can be good or bad (or is it that whatever they think good is good? No.). Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me! Let's not forget that the Korean practice method involves practicing the ever-loving crap out of a strategy. This works best with standard strategies. I'm personally tired of the casters saying "this build is standard". No, it's just popular, but there are many other variations that are just the same, if not better, than the one being used. I think it will be months before true standards emerge. For good BW go watch the OSL finals. I think you'll find what you're missing there...
How are you so certain Koreans are practicing like this for SC2?
Remember, you may hear that a lot, but I'm sure there's a bit more variation than what was implied in posts regarding korean practice regime as implied.
|
in 2007 when you started watching BW, realize it had had over 7 years to evolve and develop
sc2 hasn't even been out a year
if you're disappointed, you did that to yourself with unrealistically high expectations mr gatsby
|
BW has been around for 12 years. SC2 1 month. So why does Blizzard balance SC2 like it has been out for 12 years? Much of the game hasn't been figured out, but when the balance starts to shift to a certain race, it's "OH SHIT THE GAME IS IMBALANCED WE GOTTA FIX THIS"... no one is challenged to think outside the box when Blizzard tries to keep "standard play" balanced. It seems that because of Blizzard's decisions, the style of play around now is going to be around for a LONG time.
|
On September 12 2010 02:25 Delerium wrote:
sc2 is part of the disappointment for me... as you said it seems very fragile. One thing goes wrong and the game ends immediately. I've been wanting to write about this for a while... is this because the game is new and therefore can't possibly be stable yet? should I be patient? or should I be angry, because the game developers and their corporate structure knew the precedent- esports already existed, they knew what standard of depth and competition requirements was set for them. I don't know. I don't want my love of professional broodwar to cloud my judgement.
I know it's hard to tell because SC2 is still so new but it seems like there's absolutely no defender's advantage at all, in terms of units that can be used defensively, and no high ground advantage. That's a big reason I think why games end immediately after one person gains a slight advantage or something goes wrong. Like I said, it might be because it's new still, but I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case.
|
On September 12 2010 11:13 Loser777 wrote:
BW has been around for 12 years. SC2 1 month. So why does Blizzard balance SC2 like it has been out for 12 years? Much of the game hasn't been figured out, but when the balance starts to shift to a certain race, it's "OH SHIT THE GAME IS IMBALANCED WE GOTTA FIX THIS"... no one is challenged to think outside the box when Blizzard tries to keep "standard play" balanced. It seems that because of Blizzard's decisions, the style of play around now is going to be around for a LONG time.
this
On September 12 2010 11:37 Angra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2010 02:25 Delerium wrote:
sc2 is part of the disappointment for me... as you said it seems very fragile. One thing goes wrong and the game ends immediately. I've been wanting to write about this for a while... is this because the game is new and therefore can't possibly be stable yet? should I be patient? or should I be angry, because the game developers and their corporate structure knew the precedent- esports already existed, they knew what standard of depth and competition requirements was set for them. I don't know. I don't want my love of professional broodwar to cloud my judgement. I know it's hard to tell because SC2 is still so new but it seems like there's absolutely no defender's advantage at all, in terms of units that can be used defensively, and no high ground advantage. That's a big reason I think why games end immediately after one person gains a slight advantage or something goes wrong. Like I said, it might be because it's new still, but I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case.
and this.
I really dislike Blizzard's balancing-for-competition philosophy ever since they hit a home-run with WoW. Not only are they favoring casuals over professionals, they are too sensitive and overreactive. They said they were going to fix sc2 ultralisks to make them not-useless and instead they... nerfed them? Okay. Great. I saw this same kind of schizophrenia in WoW back when they were trying to make arena into the next big e-sport, because one of their bosses could smell the money in Korea that Starcraft was generating. They're impatient and everything seems rushed. They aren't waiting for the players, aka the millions of game testers they have around the world, to find the problems (read: establish with trends) with balance in the game so they can be fixed for high-level competition.
|
On September 12 2010 12:26 Delerium wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2010 11:13 Loser777 wrote:
BW has been around for 12 years. SC2 1 month. So why does Blizzard balance SC2 like it has been out for 12 years? Much of the game hasn't been figured out, but when the balance starts to shift to a certain race, it's "OH SHIT THE GAME IS IMBALANCED WE GOTTA FIX THIS"... no one is challenged to think outside the box when Blizzard tries to keep "standard play" balanced. It seems that because of Blizzard's decisions, the style of play around now is going to be around for a LONG time. this Show nested quote +On September 12 2010 11:37 Angra wrote:On September 12 2010 02:25 Delerium wrote:
sc2 is part of the disappointment for me... as you said it seems very fragile. One thing goes wrong and the game ends immediately. I've been wanting to write about this for a while... is this because the game is new and therefore can't possibly be stable yet? should I be patient? or should I be angry, because the game developers and their corporate structure knew the precedent- esports already existed, they knew what standard of depth and competition requirements was set for them. I don't know. I don't want my love of professional broodwar to cloud my judgement. I know it's hard to tell because SC2 is still so new but it seems like there's absolutely no defender's advantage at all, in terms of units that can be used defensively, and no high ground advantage. That's a big reason I think why games end immediately after one person gains a slight advantage or something goes wrong. Like I said, it might be because it's new still, but I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case. and this. I really dislike Blizzard's balancing-for-competition philosophy ever since they hit a home-run with WoW. Not only are they favoring casuals over professionals, they are too sensitive and overreactive. They said they were going to fix sc2 ultralisks to make them not-useless and instead they... nerfed them? Okay. Great. I saw this same kind of schizophrenia in WoW back when they were trying to make arena into the next big e-sport, because one of their bosses could smell the money in Korea that Starcraft was generating. They're impatient and everything seems rushed. They aren't waiting for the players, aka the millions of game testers they have around the world, to find the problems (read: establish with trends) with balance in the game so they can be fixed for high-level competition.
I don't know what you are talking about, there hasn't been a single balance patch since retail.
|
On September 12 2010 02:35 Chairman Ray wrote:
I do agree with you that sc2 so far has not been the quality of most other competitive, and even semi-competitive games. I almost fall asleep whenever I watch a game where both players play standard. The only thing worth watching is seeing players innovate and try out new strategies and seeing the opponent adapt to it. Right now sc2 may seem boring, but I still think it has potential. Right now the best sc2 players are just b-teamers in scbw, so I didn't expect extremely high level play and innovation to begin with. Once bw pro gamer start moving over, things will pick up a lot.
The 1/1/1 build isn't a single build, it's just the idea of getting one of each unit producing structure. There are a lot of variations of it with different timings. The Tasteless build is not the 1/1/1 itself, it's one variation.
When they say a player is playing bad, most of the time they are right. Some mistakes are obviously mistakes and not obscure play.
a variation he just happened to stumble upon after playing me 3 times in beta tvp. *scratches my chin, WONDER HOW HE CAME UP WITH THE "TASTELESS BUILD"
|
Give it time. Game's been on for weeks, not years.
|
On September 12 2010 12:48 atarianimo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2010 12:26 Delerium wrote:On September 12 2010 11:13 Loser777 wrote:
BW has been around for 12 years. SC2 1 month. So why does Blizzard balance SC2 like it has been out for 12 years? Much of the game hasn't been figured out, but when the balance starts to shift to a certain race, it's "OH SHIT THE GAME IS IMBALANCED WE GOTTA FIX THIS"... no one is challenged to think outside the box when Blizzard tries to keep "standard play" balanced. It seems that because of Blizzard's decisions, the style of play around now is going to be around for a LONG time. this On September 12 2010 11:37 Angra wrote:On September 12 2010 02:25 Delerium wrote:
sc2 is part of the disappointment for me... as you said it seems very fragile. One thing goes wrong and the game ends immediately. I've been wanting to write about this for a while... is this because the game is new and therefore can't possibly be stable yet? should I be patient? or should I be angry, because the game developers and their corporate structure knew the precedent- esports already existed, they knew what standard of depth and competition requirements was set for them. I don't know. I don't want my love of professional broodwar to cloud my judgement. I know it's hard to tell because SC2 is still so new but it seems like there's absolutely no defender's advantage at all, in terms of units that can be used defensively, and no high ground advantage. That's a big reason I think why games end immediately after one person gains a slight advantage or something goes wrong. Like I said, it might be because it's new still, but I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case. and this. I really dislike Blizzard's balancing-for-competition philosophy ever since they hit a home-run with WoW. Not only are they favoring casuals over professionals, they are too sensitive and overreactive. They said they were going to fix sc2 ultralisks to make them not-useless and instead they... nerfed them? Okay. Great. I saw this same kind of schizophrenia in WoW back when they were trying to make arena into the next big e-sport, because one of their bosses could smell the money in Korea that Starcraft was generating. They're impatient and everything seems rushed. They aren't waiting for the players, aka the millions of game testers they have around the world, to find the problems (read: establish with trends) with balance in the game so they can be fixed for high-level competition. I don't know what you are talking about, there hasn't been a single balance patch since retail.
that's true, and that is a good counter-point. I was reacting only to changes in the beta.
it's pedantic, but I come from a different school of thought that says the alpha is when you make big changes. a beta should be almost done. you release it to users for a beta test, because you're testing it for bugs... you need to make sure it's ready for release, you don't want bugs to slip through.
but that's also from an era when software was shipped finished, and patches didn't change the game, they only fixed bugs. active development is the standard now..
|
one thing i just dont get is all these people saying "it's only been out for 2 months it will be better in time" are basically admitting that it sucks watching SC2 right now but still watch it for some reason. I just cant comprehend the motivation behind this lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
