|
On January 27 2012 22:05 prOxi.FighT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 21:38 Sawamura wrote: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 . 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.
uhh wat?
Look at it this way:
You have 3 variables x; y; z
you don't know the value of any of them. and the only thing you know is that x > y
and from that you're deducing that y > z
??????
Explained simply: It's not necessary that if mechanics are more important in BW than in SC2 that the other aspects are necessarily of more importance in SC2.
In fact, I'd say the other factors are less important in SC2 overall because of how the game is designed, which greatly affects how it is played.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
The op isn't saying that you're absolutely safe. Just that standard bw openings are relatively safe.
I agree with a lot of what the op says about the difference between the 2 games. Stop being such a BW Elitist and play SC2 a bit before you bash him.
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
I'm was B- and I approve of this thread.
To me one of the biggest difference between the 2 games is because SC2 offers relatively little defender's advantage. Cheese is really powerful, hence there's the need for constant scouting and accurate guesses on what your opponent is doing. In broodwar, you can easily figure out what units your opponent is making. There are rarely any moments where you'll say, "Crap, he made tanks."
Another big difference is that units in SC2 can't be microed like BW units because of the smart AI. Microing allows for greater defender's advantage and allows the player with an inferior army to win. Too often in SC2, the player with the better army wins. There's little chance for fantastic micro to save the day.
In general I feel that SC2 is a game of making the right decisions (making the right units at the right time), leading to the superior army. It's much more of a macro game than bw because of the importance of making the right units. It also seems to be more of a strategy game because there isn't any build or unit composition that can stop all the various things that your opponent can do.
|
On January 27 2012 22:26 T.O.P. wrote:The op isn't saying that you're absolutely safe. Just that standard bw openings are relatively safe. I agree with a lot of what the op says about the difference between the 2 games. Stop being such a BW Elitist and play SC2 a bit before you bash him. Show nested quote +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 I'm was B- and I approve of this thread. To me one of the biggest difference between the 2 games is because SC2 offers relatively little defender's advantage. Cheese is really powerful, hence there's the need for constant scouting and accurate guesses on what your opponent is doing. In broodwar, you can easily figure out what units your opponent is making. There are rarely any moments where you'll say, "Crap, he made tanks." Another big difference is that units in SC2 can't be microed like BW units because of the smart AI. Microing allows for greater defender's advantage and allows the player with an inferior army to win. Too often in SC2, the player with the better army wins. There's little chance for fantastic micro to save the day. In general I feel that SC2 is a game of making the right decisions (making the right units at the right time), leading to the superior army. It's much more of a macro game than bw because of the importance of making the right units. It also seems to be more of a strategy game because there isn't any build or unit composition that can stop all the various things that your opponent can do.
The unit's can't be micro is it because of their AI or is it because the units in sc2 doesn't have the capability of doing more damage than it does in a person who has better control for example units like marine and medic in the hands of boxer.
|
Seriously Sawa, SHUT UP. Pleeeeeeeeease stop posting.
User was warned for this post
|
I hope you brood war people know you all sound like fundamental christians, ignoring things you don't like and proclaiming your game is the best. Maybe open your minds some you bigots.
User was banned for this post.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 27 2012 22:33 Sawamura wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 22:26 T.O.P. wrote:The op isn't saying that you're absolutely safe. Just that standard bw openings are relatively safe. I agree with a lot of what the op says about the difference between the 2 games. Stop being such a BW Elitist and play SC2 a bit before you bash him. 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 I'm was B- and I approve of this thread. To me one of the biggest difference between the 2 games is because SC2 offers relatively little defender's advantage. Cheese is really powerful, hence there's the need for constant scouting and accurate guesses on what your opponent is doing. In broodwar, you can easily figure out what units your opponent is making. There are rarely any moments where you'll say, "Crap, he made tanks." Another big difference is that units in SC2 can't be microed like BW units because of the smart AI. Microing allows for greater defender's advantage and allows the player with an inferior army to win. Too often in SC2, the player with the better army wins. There's little chance for fantastic micro to save the day. In general I feel that SC2 is a game of making the right decisions (making the right units at the right time), leading to the superior army. It's much more of a macro game than bw because of the importance of making the right units. It also seems to be more of a strategy game because there isn't any build or unit composition that can stop all the various things that your opponent can do. The unit's can't be micro is it because of their AI or is it because the units in sc2 doesn't have the capability of doing more damage than it does in a person who has better control for example units like marine and medic in the hands of boxer.
Marine medic micro might be even harder in SC2 compared to SC1. But overall, there are less units where in the hands of a pro player will kill a lot more stuff than in the hands of a amateur player. For example, reavers replaced with colossus, high templars now have smart casting, carriers can't be microed, mutas can't be microed. Terran is the only race that requires micro lol.
There's also the issue of unit pathing. So much apm in bw is spent on moving units around. It's also a big part of skill. You need to move units around for positioning and you need to move units around to micro. In the amateur level, you'll see a lot of players say I lost cause my dragoon bugged. But at the pro level, these guys know when do dragoon bug and they move it so that it doesn't bug. I heard people say a lot that reaver scarabs move randomly. But they don't. Pros know how scarabs move so they target the worker that won't block the scarab from hitting it's target asap.
|
On January 27 2012 22:54 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 22:33 Sawamura wrote:On January 27 2012 22:26 T.O.P. wrote:The op isn't saying that you're absolutely safe. Just that standard bw openings are relatively safe. I agree with a lot of what the op says about the difference between the 2 games. Stop being such a BW Elitist and play SC2 a bit before you bash him. 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 I'm was B- and I approve of this thread. To me one of the biggest difference between the 2 games is because SC2 offers relatively little defender's advantage. Cheese is really powerful, hence there's the need for constant scouting and accurate guesses on what your opponent is doing. In broodwar, you can easily figure out what units your opponent is making. There are rarely any moments where you'll say, "Crap, he made tanks." Another big difference is that units in SC2 can't be microed like BW units because of the smart AI. Microing allows for greater defender's advantage and allows the player with an inferior army to win. Too often in SC2, the player with the better army wins. There's little chance for fantastic micro to save the day. In general I feel that SC2 is a game of making the right decisions (making the right units at the right time), leading to the superior army. It's much more of a macro game than bw because of the importance of making the right units. It also seems to be more of a strategy game because there isn't any build or unit composition that can stop all the various things that your opponent can do. The unit's can't be micro is it because of their AI or is it because the units in sc2 doesn't have the capability of doing more damage than it does in a person who has better control for example units like marine and medic in the hands of boxer. Marine medic micro might be even harder in SC2 compared to SC1. But overall, there are less units where in the hands of a pro player will kill a lot more stuff than in the hands of a amateur player. For example, reavers replaced with colossus, high templars now have smart casting, carriers can't be microed, mutas can't be microed. Terran is the only race that requires micro lol. There's also the issue of unit pathing. So much apm in bw is spent on moving units around. It's also a big part of skill. You need to move units around for positioning and you need to move units around to micro. In the amateur level, you'll see a lot of players say I lost cause my dragoon bugged. But at the pro level, these guys know when do dragoon bug and they move it so that it doesn't bug. I heard people say a lot that reaver scarabs move randomly. But they don't. Pros know how scarabs move so they target the worker that won't block the scarab from hitting it's target asap.
I agree wholeheartedly. Also i never understood why people named scarabs random, its painfully obvious to trained eyes that pros use it against each other, simcities are designed so scarab may have 0 efficiency, turret placements etc. I think scarab fell to the same category as "bw has random mechanics, lolscarabs". I believe sc2 needs some "physicality" like scarab or even ultra, when you can use the terrain structure, position to your advantage. Anyone remember medic walls? 
Im not a fan of Banelings vs Marine, its kinda way to win or lose situation, it ends to fast, it requires to precise control, meaning you dont do anythig else while doing it. Its "tunnel vision" micro. And sadly its only 1 of 3 meaningful microabilities in sc2.
|
See the point is, before all the sc2 vs bw threads on TL started, and before all the blizzard vs kespa mess, I think almost everyone was excited for a Starcraft sequel as it was obvious that no single game can last forever and the next best thing is to have faithful sequels that would keep up with the times and keep the brand alive. So I honestly can't imagine there are many BW fans that weren't at one point in time enthusiastic or at least intrigued about SC2, and that have never touched SC2 either during beta, or just after release, or just played it on a friend's account or something.
So posting this thread here makes little sense. The reason why a mirror of this thread makes sense in SC2 forums is because, unlike people who have been Starcraft fans for years, many SC2 players came from different backgrounds and weren't aware or haven't had an obvious reason to try out Starcraft 1 and BW if they haven't played it in the past.
Personally, I play SC2 exclusively nowadays. I'm just not that fond of watching it as a spectator "sport" any more, and there are a lot of things that happen in the sc2 scene outside the game that annoy me on top of that, so the overall experience is no longer enjoyable for me.
|
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 so true.
|
I'm sorry if this sounds rude or elitist, but this post demonstrates an SC2-level knowledge of BW(as in, either you've barely played it or only heard things mentioned by others). A lot of your post is pretty wrong.
SC2 has done little to impress me. The nature of quite a few things in the game lead it to be very comparable to the more mediocre games of BW.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 27 2012 23:17 Lightwip wrote:
I'm sorry if this sounds rude or elitist, but this post demonstrates an SC2-level knowledge of BW(as in, either you've barely played it or only heard things mentioned by others). A lot of your post is pretty wrong.
SC2 has done little to impress me. The nature of quite a few things in the game lead it to be very comparable to the more mediocre games of BW.
This isn't about SC2 vs BW, which one is better. The op wants to convince you to try SC2. He explains tries to use his experiences to explain the difference between SC2 and BW.
|
On January 27 2012 21:49 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 21:38 Sawamura wrote: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 . 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.
I nitpick one sentence and say what I feel what the OP did wrong in general to show that there are quite a few problems in his reasonning. There are also so true things in what he says, but I don't really know how they relate to the fact that everybody should play a little sc2.
|
On January 27 2012 23:43 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 23:17 Lightwip wrote:
I'm sorry if this sounds rude or elitist, but this post demonstrates an SC2-level knowledge of BW(as in, either you've barely played it or only heard things mentioned by others). A lot of your post is pretty wrong.
SC2 has done little to impress me. The nature of quite a few things in the game lead it to be very comparable to the more mediocre games of BW. This isn't about SC2 vs BW, which one is better. The op wants to convince you to try SC2. He explains tries to use his experiences to explain the difference between SC2 and BW.
As a game. When I tried SC2, there just wasn't any good feel about it. The absence of frustration when controlling BW units was the main reason why I discontinued SC2. I really can't explain why but I loved those frustrations. I seriously, honestly do.
And when it comes to spectating players. It's just all flashy gimmick in my eyes. I'm have a trained eye for HON/DOTA clashing but big elaborated SC2 battles just seems 1-a move to me with a micro hear and there. It's so uninspiring. (I have a good understand the mechanics of damage, unit sizes, etc.,)
If the target of this thread was for people who just plays BW and never tested SC2, good luck with that but to some who have actually tried SC2 and disliked both the game and the proscene then you're wasting your time.
|
I think the problem with the thread is that most peoples response is pretty much. Yeah i've played SC2. Pointless thread. Thats why people are nitpicking.
I changed my sidebar settings to check out the sister thread in the SC2 section and you realise pretty soon that BW topics not related to progamers switching over is just people defecating all over the thread.
|
On January 27 2012 22:21 Cr4zyH0r5e wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 22:05 prOxi.FighT wrote:On January 27 2012 21:38 Sawamura wrote: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 . 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. uhh wat? Look at it this way: You have 3 variables x; y; z you don't know the value of any of them. and the only thing you know is that x > y and from that you're deducing that y > z ?????? Explained simply: It's not necessary that if mechanics are more important in BW than in SC2 that the other aspects are necessarily of more importance in SC2. In fact, I'd say the other factors are less important in SC2 overall because of how the game is designed, which greatly affects how it is played.
"important" is relative. If the value of y declines, that makes x and z bigger compared to y, hence they are more important than they were when y would be big.
|
On January 27 2012 22:26 T.O.P. wrote:The op isn't saying that you're absolutely safe. Just that standard bw openings are relatively safe. I agree with a lot of what the op says about the difference between the 2 games. Stop being such a BW Elitist and play SC2 a bit before you bash him. Show nested quote +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 I'm was B- and I approve of this thread. To me one of the biggest difference between the 2 games is because SC2 offers relatively little defender's advantage. Cheese is really powerful, hence there's the need for constant scouting and accurate guesses on what your opponent is doing. In broodwar, you can easily figure out what units your opponent is making. There are rarely any moments where you'll say, "Crap, he made tanks." Another big difference is that units in SC2 can't be microed like BW units because of the smart AI. Microing allows for greater defender's advantage and allows the player with an inferior army to win. Too often in SC2, the player with the better army wins. There's little chance for fantastic micro to save the day. In general I feel that SC2 is a game of making the right decisions (making the right units at the right time), leading to the superior army. It's much more of a macro game than bw because of the importance of making the right units. It also seems to be more of a strategy game because there isn't any build or unit composition that can stop all the various things that your opponent can do.
For me, what you say sounds like sc2 requires more luck, but instead you say "accurate guesses". The point about making the right units is pretty true though, but is also reinforcing that impression. I'll add that making the right units is not really something that sounds interesting, and it is not deep strategic thinking.
|
I posted this in the thread in sc2 general but I'll reiterate it; most people that play bw have tried sc2 at some time. Depending on how they felt about it, they're more than likely concentrating their posts in one general forum or the other.
I myself have played over 1500 games of sc2, and well I think some of your points at solid (completely disagree about relaxation wtf), none of them have been able to overcome the serious deficiencies in the game. (at least for me)
I'm not going to write out ten paragraphs as to why because it's been done one hundred times over, but I will say that I find sc2 units very bland and narrow in use, the micro is too static and frankly boring, the macro mechanics are too forgiving etc etc.
So well I respect your effort OP; I must whole heartedly disagree.
|
I played SC2 for a year and a half and it is horrible, disgustinly bad designed and extremely unfun in my experience, especially if you come from (only) 3 years of playing BW.
Almost every single new feature in the game is just plain uncreative, and Bnet 2.0 makes the experience of playing SC2 even worse. I tried really hard to get into it since its launch, but I couldn't stop face palming as I played each new match, or even navigating throught Bnet. And I even tried playing with all races to see if I could find it fun with a new race, but it was just really disappointing. I am EXTREMELY disappointed with SC2, that game is a huge step back compared to BW.
But that was my experience with the game. If you haven't tried SC2 yet, give it a shot, although paying a whooping US$60 to just try it (if you want to play P or Z) is kinda crazy.
Seriously, try it, early game, when there is no ball vs ball, it can be fun. When Dustin Browder's shit start coming into play, thats when the face palming begins.
|
Could somebody point me in the direction of this HD size BW screenshot showing engagements all over the map please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
