EPTall servers
like 200K or something ? what do you guys think ?
Everybody should play a little SC2 - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Sinedd
Poland7052 Posts
all servers like 200K or something ? what do you guys think ? | ||
|
Olinimm
1471 Posts
Really? Seems weird it has a monthly fee in some places but not others...how does that even work. xD Seems like it costs less initially though. | ||
|
FourFace
701 Posts
| ||
|
Fus
Sweden1112 Posts
On January 27 2012 20:27 Sinedd wrote: I wonder what is the approximate number of people that still play BW all servers like 200K or something ? what do you guys think ? Is it that many? I have not played BW much but battle.net has no support for SC1 ladder due to lack of players anymore i belive? I think there was about 900 people playing on ICCup servers when i was online, but i guess BW is still big in korea. | ||
|
ReketSomething
United States6012 Posts
On January 27 2012 19:02 sluggaslamoo wrote: Well the thing is, nearly all BW players have tried SC2 to a certain extent. Not many SC2 players have even seen BW. This is very true  | ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1411 Posts
| ||
|
Sinedd
Poland7052 Posts
On January 27 2012 20:38 Fus wrote: Is it that many? I have not played BW much but battle.net has no support for SC1 ladder due to lack of players anymore i belive? I think there was about 900 people playing on ICCup servers when i was online, but i guess BW is still big in korea. I think if you mass up all the servers and stuff you'll get like 100 or 150K or something. BW is still pretty popular in the US, Russia, Poland, South America  | ||
|
Trap
United States395 Posts
This always boggles me. What does it mean to be an "ex" player? Will you never play again? Is there something preventing you from just installing either game again? Or do you simply mean that you're currently not in-game. If you want to assume some authority you should describe yourself as a player of both games no? Ex-player as in "I currently don't play either game regularly". I never assumed any authority. I only preface my argument given my limited experience: I was a top 200 EU player during the beta and a mediocre C- terran.. I've written a few things for Liquipedia for 1 and 2. I've been a sponsor of the ISLs. But I don't have the time to play either game anymore due to work. I think that qualifies me as an ex-player. :-) Really unsure about this sentence. If it's part of the argument it shouldn't be in the introduction plus you should explain it properly. If you put it in like this it puts a very big questionmark on what your stance is. Are you bashing SC2 cause it's easy or are you recommending it because you were able to get these wins? A C- player on ICCUP such as myself would never be able to take a game off top BW foreigners ranked around A, and I believe WhiteRa hit A+ without dodging. The difference in mechanics and strategy between these levels is astounding. All I'm stating is my proficiency in SC2 was enough take a fair number of games off the top EU players at the time. This is clearly not at a 'pro' level in SC2, but it does indicate I was playing it seriously at the time, and was also quite fun because they were all names I was familiar with from replays. I'm not bashing SC2 because it's 'easier'. It's a different game that promotes a different kind of playstyle. + Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote: This is a BW response to the complementary thread in the SC2 forum. From my brief SC2 venture, I think there's some value in BW players trying out SC2 if you haven't already. With BW mechanics, you can get right into the best parts of SC2: mindgames and army control. I don't mean to say that playing SC2 is like playing a micro map or some other subset of BW. This is a non-sequitur for the question you posed - or am I misreading it? You're saying that knowledge of Broodwar will enable you to play SC2 well. Well if people would have that as a goal - being able to play SC2 well - they'd already be playing that game. I'll shortly refer to the structure of this, but you need to focus on what the audience you're talking to's goals or wishes are first. Right now you're making the assumption BW players want to be good at SC2 and are assuring them that playing SC2 will be good for them. This makes no sense in terms of trying to convince people. The other thread is about how SC2 players can benefit from playing BW. I wrote this thread to talk about how playing a bit of SC2 influenced how I think about BW. I did not state that BW players would want to become good at SC2, only by my personal experience that they might learn a thing or two from it. Don't agree with this. Macro and Micro go hand in hand in both games. This term "macro game" that's been coined doesn't resonate with me at all. People say certain rushes or all-ins don't require macro which is nonsense, especially at the lower levels. Let's look at your argument though, why not extend it and recommend WC3 instead, which focusses on army control even more. Surely people will appreciate the depth of Broodwar even more. And is that really your argument? You think BW players have as a goal to appreciate their own game more and so you recommend SC2 that performs more poorly in the terms of depth so that by comparison they'll like BW more? Below is quoted the first paragraph of your actual argument - but I strongly feel you should analyze and describe what you're going to do. What are the goals of BW players? What do they enjoy about the game? Why do they play it? Once you've established this, you can argue how SC2, also, will facilitate these goals and wishes. Once you determine what BW players gain from playing BW, you can argue how they will benefit from SC2. Example: they enjoy competitive play, strategic thinking, rts games in general, an active community, being creative with builds, fine tuning their play, etc etc. I said "mindgames and army control". There is no mention of macro and micro in what I wrote. Mindgames refer to tricking the opponent into believing something that isn't true. Army control in SC2, as I explained later, is a comparatively larger part of the game than BW, because of the faster speed of SC2 battles. There isn't as much time to get into position. In BW, one can often retreat without taking staggering losses; in SC2, there are various mechanics that prevent this (forcefield, concussion shells, fungal growth). And I don't think there's much point in summarising the goals of all BW players. I have talked with many people in BW, and people play this game for a staggering number of very different reasons! First you say limited information and then you give an example in which both players know what the other is doing? The second bolded sentence is bullshit. People don't know they're safe beforehand, they can scout and (take that limited information to) take certain precautions to become safe. The two statements are not contradictory to each other; that is my point. There are many situations in modern BW, especially in the early game, where you do not have map vision but can get a very close approximation of exactly what units and capabilities your opponent has just by knowing what their build is so far. At this point, there is really no 'pressure' on either player, because they know the boundaries of what the other player can do from the aggressive to the economic. In my example, both players do not have complete or even near complete vision of the other (possibly, Protoss can sneak an observer to see the factory count). But they both know that they are safe from loosing the game outright for the next 2 minutes: Terran due to the cost-efficient defence after his natural is set up, Protoss due to the limited number of tanks the Terran can have. Whether this is a good or bad thing, BW is currently more mapped in this sense and has more times of relative safety compared to SC2. About the first bolded part: I fail to see how one follows from the other. I also don't agree with "fake aggression much easier". I'd like to hear some examples. You're again making the argument that BW players would be good at SC2, which doesn't help your argument. Who do you think your audience is? BW players that are scared to play SC2 cause they're afraid they'll be bad? Since I can only give Protoss examples, one can do variations of build 2 gates, then show addition gates or tech to a scout on purpose, and then cancelling that tech. The response to a 4 gate, 3 gate blink, 2 gate robo, and 2 gate stargate are vastly different. Because SC2 has much stronger unit counters than BW, scouting is more limited, and the common builds in SC2 are less 'general' as modern adaptable BW builds like 3HMuta, there's a lot of opporunity in SC2 to use these mindgames. Similar tricks exist in BW, such as starting air weapons research then cancelling into DT. But even then, in BW a suspicious Terran could be safe just by going the standard FD with mines. As far as my audience, it is anyone who hasn't tried SC2 yet or wanted to comment on their experience going to or from it. This isn't some proselytising post, it's simply the opposite view of a thread brought up in the SC2 forums. My head is full of fuck on this one. Read it aloud to yourself. It contradicts itself or is at the very least paradoxical. Again you need to establish the goal of your audience: if one of the goals is to play a mechanically demanding game than right now you're de-recommending SC2 which is the exact opposite of what you set out to do! I also strongly disagree with the rest. It's bullshit that you know mutas are gonna be at your base at time X. What if he cancels the spire to fake you out and does a 3 hatch ling all-in. You know know, you scout. True for both games. Also both games have instances where your forces can be taken out in a split second if you don't pay attention for too long. If he cancels his spire and 3hatch ling allins, unless his name is LRM)nOone I will drag scvs and defend (and even then I think i've only lost once to that...) I don't see why you think the predicate statement "BW is unquestionably more demanding" must be a goal, and I think you are misreading what I have been saying. You can keep your scouting worker alive in BW for a very, very long time compared to SC2 due to the worker speed. There is more uncertainty in playing SC2 than there is in BW from a player's view, and I think that forces you to think a bit more on the fly. Weird kind of argument. The SC2 game field screen is just as big as the BW one. What I think you -mean- is that in SC2 you can do a lot of stuff in your base blindly because of MBS. (Not sure if this is true - I used to go back to my base a lot but that's because I was used to BW - not sure how other people do it). What you're, then again, propagating is a mechanically less demanding game. Why would this be in favour of your hypothesis? The SC2 game field screen is comparably sized to the BW one, but due to the unit collision size, you can manage everything in one or two screens. It is easier for me to visualize one screen or two screens than four or five. If I want to think what is the state of this game right now, I don't have go find the vultures that are running loops in my third. This gives you more time to think about other aspects of the game. Couldn't disagree more with the first bold part, especially with the vast increase in game quality we've seen over the last year and a half. Second line of thought: SC2 has MBU > This puts everything on one screen > If you do this in BW you'll improve. While I doubt that "improving your BW play" is a major reason for BW players to try out SC2, the reasoning makes no sense cause BW has no MBU. *confused* I said it's easier for someone to think about what kind of map control they have, what expansions they should be guarding, and what moves they should be making in the future if they can keep tabs of all the information without having to multitask around the map. In BW one difficulty is that you have to juggle many different screens of information and units; in SC2, this is much less the case. Developing more game awareness is a good thing. The latter is most definitely more important in both games and if there's anything that SC2 doesn't facilitate it's the spreading out of armies. Again you have missed the point. Macro is quite simple in SC2 for starters, and army control, which I'd define as spreading out your army correctly, is not simple. In BW the answer is more complicated, but in some situations such as the 9 minute push, executing that push quickly and correctly to push all the way to the Zerg's nat is more important than keeping your money down. If you were to use the macro takes precedence approach and never made it to the Zerg's nat, defilers would shortly be at your doorstep. Disagreed. My personal inclination would be to say that players often base their positioning on unit control rather than map control but that doesn't means it's supposed to be that way - or rather, that that is the optimal way to play. I'd like to hear you explain this statement though. Also don't understand the "due to scale" phrase. The scale refers to how SC2 is a more aggressive game which relies less on defending expansions through map control devices (tanks, mines, lurkers, etc.) and more about quick battles that are decided by unit composition and your control. So while positioning in BW is more of a static concept of sim cities with static defence, positioning in SC2 is more about spreading your units correctly because static defences are not as strong. Don't agree with the "much less" and the second bolded part is true for both games. Again about structure, you need to tie this in with what you think would make SC2 a good game for BW players to play. If you think they would benefit or enjoy having to take good care of their forces cause you can get caught off-guard in an instant then point that out. It is true for both games, but you need to react faster in SC2 / be better prepared, because due to the game's aggressive design there are many abilities that make retreat (and subsequently defending with less units) more difficult than BW. | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
On January 27 2012 19:02 sluggaslamoo wrote: Well the thing is, nearly all BW players have tried SC2 to a certain extent. Not many SC2 players have even seen BW. I agree, but I'm not sure what the difference exactly is when we don't have any data. I think it's more accurate to say that while most BW fans have dismissed SC2 after giving it a good look, the way most SC2 fans on TL talk about BW suggest they are very ignorant about anything BW-related, from the size of its scale to its history. | ||
|
Siz)Beggar
United States337 Posts
| ||
|
Trap
United States395 Posts
On January 27 2012 21:11 Siz)Beggar wrote: Cant talk about bw if you dont understand it as you said you were only c- thats bearly even scratching the surface of bw Then you might as well close these forums, since I'm pretty sure the average level of TL is D/D+. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
There isn't as much time to get into position. In BW, one can often retreat without taking staggering losses; in SC2, there are various mechanics that prevent this (forcefield, concussion shells, fungal growth). And I don't think there's much point in summarising the goals of all BW players. I have talked with many people in BW, and people play this game for a staggering number of very different reasons! Why should I be punish for having a better position ? Also if you take away my chances to retreat is that a fair game ?You say I can often retreat without taking losses ? I only can focus mostly on my macro and unit control however to have total focus on both them is insane . Take example a TvZ , You position your 9 minute push deathball outside the zerg main , you press f3 back to macro and you hear the advisor warning that you are forces are under attack , First thing you realized that your science vessel is gone , second there is dark swarm on top of your mnm and tanks and lurkers are spinning your troops to death . Loses such as that is not staggering to you ? Than probably you are lee young ho because you can macro those same type of units back in to action but not me . If he cancels his spire and 3hatch ling allins, unless his name is LRM)nOone I will drag scvs and defend (and even then I think i've only lost once to that...) I don't see why you think the predicate statement "BW is unquestionably more demanding" must be a goal, and I think you are misreading what I have been saying. You can keep your scouting worker alive in BW for a very, very long time compared to SC2 due to the worker speed. There is more uncertainty in playing SC2 than there is in BW from a player's view, and I think that forces you to think a bit more on the fly. It totally depends on who you are playing with , A d- player will not have the zergling micro to take down your scouting scv , a better player of course will surround the scv before it can even last a few more seconds . | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
| ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On January 27 2012 21:31 MrCon wrote: What OP is saying makes perfect sense, it's so sad he gets nit picked like that... How is it perfect sense when he is making out that broodwar has been figured out and if you just rely on mechanics and that's all it takes to win a game . Disregarding all needs to think to win a game and he is also talking about a perfect scenario that always happen to him and not taking into account if his scv scouting dies , is he going to have a perfect response all the time to all scenario ? . Maybe he is flash and he is able to do that . | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On January 27 2012 21:31 MrCon wrote: What OP is saying makes perfect sense, it's so sad he gets nit picked like that... Army control in SC2, as I explained later, is a comparatively larger part of the game than BW, because of the faster speed of SC2 battles I don't get it. And I'd rather have a thread with a relatively cold headed debate than the hate there is in that other thread I discovered. Oh yeah, and OP, a good part of Pholon point is that you do not state clearly the puprose of your thread. If I read you correctly, it's an answer to the counterpart in the SC2 forum (which you should not assume everyone has read), but then your title is misleading. Well, at least a good part of your points don't have anything to do with what one would expect from your title. That being said, the other OP is not very good either... | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On January 27 2012 21:38 Sawamura wrote: How is it perfect sense when he is making out that broodwar has been figured out and if you just rely on mechanics and that's all it takes to win a game . Disregarding all needs to think to win a game and he is also talking about a perfect scenario that always happen to him and not taking into account if his scv scouting dies , is he going to have a perfect response all the time to all scenario ? . Maybe he is flash and he is able to do that . I won't enter the nitpicking contest. "but hey in this example what he said isn't true ! So everything is wrong !" What he said makes perfect sense. Broodwar is way more figured, and the result is exactly what he said. He also says that the easier mechanics of sc2 allows you to concentrate on other things. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On January 27 2012 21:49 MrCon wrote: I won't enter the nitpicking contest. "but hey in this example what he said isn't true ! So everything is wrong !" What he said makes perfect sense. Broodwar is way more figured, and the result is exactly what he said. He's saying figured out in terms of there having a Safe timing where each player would not move their pieces according to XX : XX stipulated of time . When the game is so dynamic is this even possible to predict that no players won't be trying to edge out of the other player with his advantage ? Probably what he said could be true , until Jaedong and Soo in Sk proleague got timing attack at what supposed to be the safest timing to take their third and not make sunken by Flash . I know that sc2 allows you to spend more time on my units but how is it going to help me in broodwar when both sc2 and bw units behave differently. | ||
|
Winstan90
England20 Posts
| ||
|
prOxi.FighT
Australia114 Posts
On January 27 2012 21:38 Sawamura wrote: How is it perfect sense when he is making out that broodwar has been figured out and if you just rely on mechanics and that's all it takes to win a game . Disregarding all needs to think to win a game and he is also talking about a perfect scenario that always happen to him and not taking into account if his scv scouting dies , is he going to have a perfect response all the time to all scenario ? . Maybe he is flash and he is able to do that . If mechanics is of more importance in BW than Sc2, then other aspects of Sc2 must be more important to be able to win games. | ||
|
Count9
China10928 Posts
On January 27 2012 22:05 prOxi.FighT wrote: If mechanics is of more importance in BW than Sc2, then other aspects of Sc2 must be more important to be able to win games. That's true only under the assumption that both games are equally difficult. I wish there was something in SC2 as fun as dropping reavers or microing mutas or microing vultures. God I hate microing hellions so much, they feel like battlecruisers compared to patrol micro vultures with speed. | ||
| ||
