|
On November 25 2011 11:57 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 11:52 darklight54321 wrote: In SC2 the average pro must understand more strategy then the average BW pro, simply because the sc2 pros can't depend on micro/macro as much. Thats where the similarity of chess comes in, it's seems you dont like the fact that higher level strategy is used. I'm all for more action packed games, but not at the expense of what i see as the crowning achievement of SC2, the easier mechanics but higher focus on strategy.
You should probably try to learn more about both games before you make comments which are way off. This is just a highlight of where you went wrong.
It isn't, you can't compare sc2 to chess as so many people in this topic do without recognizing the strategy aspect that is involved. A game of chess is pure strategy, to compare sc2 to chess moreso then bw then say it doesn't require more strategy is the sign of an ignorant fanboy.
so thanks, i'll disregard every post that ever mentions chess and yet seems to think strategy isn't bigger in sc2, including the OP.
|
On November 25 2011 11:52 darklight54321 wrote:
As soon as these posts arrive by the second page it loses all point.
Let me say this bluntly first, before going into actual detail.
Harder =/= equal better, nor should the focus be on making things smaller.
and another point
harder = less popularity. (more about casuals then point 1)
Now to go into details
point 1.
Making it harder doesn't make it more interesting. What makes games interesting is how players use the mechanics given to them. Players in BW make use of the constricted control groups as their form of army control and with a larger army possible it was fairly simple that you'd not get maxed as often. The max isn't a "goal" it's just part of the game. Now take this to SC2. With higher worker count and armies that die faster, you get quicker battles, but you actually get more bang for your buck. Throwaway drops are fairly common even as you get to the highest level. The end game goal is getting the strongest army you can and getting an advantage with that army. It's more passive yes, it's easier yes, but THAT DOESNT MAKE IT WORSE. SC2 allows for a higher focus then who micros that one control group of dragoons better, it allows for an even higher level of overall strategy then we see right now and that we couldn't see in BW. In BW the micro/macro mechanics restrict how good you are, and the legends are those that go beyond that level. In SC2 the average pro must understand more strategy then the average BW pro, simply because the sc2 pros can't depend on micro/macro as much. Thats where the similarity of chess comes in, it's seems you dont like the fact that higher level strategy is used. I'm all for more action packed games, but not at the expense of what i see as the crowning achievement of SC2, the easier mechanics but higher focus on strategy.
point 2
BW could never get to the level of SC2 in viewership and as an international esport. A large majority of viewers are players (or would be players if they didn't watch), THIS is the difference that will make sc2 a true success internationally. No longer do you have to be a good RTS player or really understand the game to even begin to see what's going on in the game. Fact, people like to watch what they can understand. People can watch sc2 who couldn't even begin to watch BW (i'm completely disregarding graphics btw, since they could always make BW 2.0 as many of you seem to want). This is more relating to esports as a success vs as a game, but it is still a very important point.
BW is a simpler game than SC2. Just saying. The viewer base for BW is actually much more casual (in Korea), hardly anyone watches SC2 without having played it, there are tonnes of BW fangirls/guys/mums/dads who haven't played a single game of BW.
Also you should really follow BW or play it before you make such crazy claims. You still see crazy strategies being developed in BW and rookies beating top pros from time to time.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 08 2011 11:15 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Add this to the list of annoying TvZ builds:
Kitchen sink build:
cheese into harass into m&m-wraith-valk-tank-vulture
The one-of-everything build (aka fast irradiate):
That ridiculous 1 rax cc (or 14 cc) build that goes rax->fac->port->facility for fast irradiate to push back muta harass that typically moves towards standard SK or bio-mech. It's not very successful vs competent zergs, yet Flash and fantasy still occasionally experiment with it.
Sparks Terran:
3-rax all-in sunken break
The Asshole build:
The inspiration for the Kitchen Sink's harassment element, I feel. You may have seen this build in the Ro8 of the Avalon MSL, Canata vs Jaedong, game one. It was basically something absurd like 8 rax (overlord sniping or bunker rush attempt), 8 fact with vulture run-by attempt, and 8/9 port for wraith to hunt overlord. When it works, it pretty much ends the game. I think there was a similar game Hwasin vs Hyvaa back in the day.
The Combo Breaker:
You see it more often today, the 2 fact to 4 rax into goliath+m&m 2 base timing attack. As seen used by Flash and Iris recently.
iloveoov fake mech:
Self explanatory. Watch Jaedong vs Ganzi to see its effectiveness.
THE fantasy build:
I mean THE build. Killed GGplay but failed vs Jaedong. 1 rax 1 fac 1 vulture then cc into vulture drop w/ speed. Works great vs 3 hatch muta. Not so much vs 2 hatch muta. Hardly seen these days.
2 port wraith into bio:
This build always makes a comeback.
2 factory:
ForGG played around with this a couple of games last year.
There are others, but those are the ones on the top of my head.
|
On November 25 2011 12:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 11:52 darklight54321 wrote:
As soon as these posts arrive by the second page it loses all point.
Let me say this bluntly first, before going into actual detail.
Harder =/= equal better, nor should the focus be on making things smaller.
and another point
harder = less popularity. (more about casuals then point 1)
Now to go into details
point 1.
Making it harder doesn't make it more interesting. What makes games interesting is how players use the mechanics given to them. Players in BW make use of the constricted control groups as their form of army control and with a larger army possible it was fairly simple that you'd not get maxed as often. The max isn't a "goal" it's just part of the game. Now take this to SC2. With higher worker count and armies that die faster, you get quicker battles, but you actually get more bang for your buck. Throwaway drops are fairly common even as you get to the highest level. The end game goal is getting the strongest army you can and getting an advantage with that army. It's more passive yes, it's easier yes, but THAT DOESNT MAKE IT WORSE. SC2 allows for a higher focus then who micros that one control group of dragoons better, it allows for an even higher level of overall strategy then we see right now and that we couldn't see in BW. In BW the micro/macro mechanics restrict how good you are, and the legends are those that go beyond that level. In SC2 the average pro must understand more strategy then the average BW pro, simply because the sc2 pros can't depend on micro/macro as much. Thats where the similarity of chess comes in, it's seems you dont like the fact that higher level strategy is used. I'm all for more action packed games, but not at the expense of what i see as the crowning achievement of SC2, the easier mechanics but higher focus on strategy.
point 2
BW could never get to the level of SC2 in viewership and as an international esport. A large majority of viewers are players (or would be players if they didn't watch), THIS is the difference that will make sc2 a true success internationally. No longer do you have to be a good RTS player or really understand the game to even begin to see what's going on in the game. Fact, people like to watch what they can understand. People can watch sc2 who couldn't even begin to watch BW (i'm completely disregarding graphics btw, since they could always make BW 2.0 as many of you seem to want). This is more relating to esports as a success vs as a game, but it is still a very important point. BW is a simpler game than SC2. Just saying.
simpler in some ways, but much tougher to understand at higher levels and much tougher to even attempt to pick up and play. The average person could pick up sc2 and be able to understand what's happening rather quickly, or even after watching a few well commentated game could pick up some of the ideas. To get near that same level for viewing BW you'd need to spend extensive time and put a commitment into it. Which will never happen until esports reaches the point it doesn't need to persuade, because it's already there.
nice ninja edit, time to add on to mine :p
The difference between what happened with BW in korea is based in what was going on. As anyone that knows anything about BW knows, it became popular because of the timing it hit with the state of Korea as the main driving force. It was cheap entertainment and was VERY well advertised. Also, the casual got hooked on the players, not the game. The adverts was focused on the players. hell cnn compared it to a cult (love hyperbole).. Most of them ended up learning more as they viewed as a side effect. to be short, it wasn't the game that attracted the casual viewers, it was the unique portrayal of the game that only worked because of when and how they executed it
|
On November 25 2011 12:20 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 11:57 Fontong wrote:On November 25 2011 11:52 darklight54321 wrote: In SC2 the average pro must understand more strategy then the average BW pro, simply because the sc2 pros can't depend on micro/macro as much. Thats where the similarity of chess comes in, it's seems you dont like the fact that higher level strategy is used. I'm all for more action packed games, but not at the expense of what i see as the crowning achievement of SC2, the easier mechanics but higher focus on strategy.
You should probably try to learn more about both games before you make comments which are way off. This is just a highlight of where you went wrong. It isn't, you can't compare sc2 to chess as so many people in this topic do without recognizing the strategy aspect that is involved. A game of chess is pure strategy, to compare sc2 to chess moreso then bw then say it doesn't require more strategy is the sign of an ignorant fanboy. so thanks, i'll disregard every post that ever mentions chess and yet seems to think strategy isn't bigger in sc2, including the OP.
I'm sorry, I was being unclear. I intended 'both games' to encompass BW and SC2, not SC2 and chess. It's true when you say that SC2 leans more towards the strategy side than the mechanics side. That still doesn't mean that the strategy in SC2 is deeper and more complex that the strategy in BW, which has had a decade longer to develop. I can't say if in 10 years SC2 will be more strategically complex than BW ever was, but right now that is not the case.
|
On November 25 2011 12:23 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 12:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:On November 25 2011 11:52 darklight54321 wrote:
As soon as these posts arrive by the second page it loses all point.
Let me say this bluntly first, before going into actual detail.
Harder =/= equal better, nor should the focus be on making things smaller.
and another point
harder = less popularity. (more about casuals then point 1)
Now to go into details
point 1.
Making it harder doesn't make it more interesting. What makes games interesting is how players use the mechanics given to them. Players in BW make use of the constricted control groups as their form of army control and with a larger army possible it was fairly simple that you'd not get maxed as often. The max isn't a "goal" it's just part of the game. Now take this to SC2. With higher worker count and armies that die faster, you get quicker battles, but you actually get more bang for your buck. Throwaway drops are fairly common even as you get to the highest level. The end game goal is getting the strongest army you can and getting an advantage with that army. It's more passive yes, it's easier yes, but THAT DOESNT MAKE IT WORSE. SC2 allows for a higher focus then who micros that one control group of dragoons better, it allows for an even higher level of overall strategy then we see right now and that we couldn't see in BW. In BW the micro/macro mechanics restrict how good you are, and the legends are those that go beyond that level. In SC2 the average pro must understand more strategy then the average BW pro, simply because the sc2 pros can't depend on micro/macro as much. Thats where the similarity of chess comes in, it's seems you dont like the fact that higher level strategy is used. I'm all for more action packed games, but not at the expense of what i see as the crowning achievement of SC2, the easier mechanics but higher focus on strategy.
point 2
BW could never get to the level of SC2 in viewership and as an international esport. A large majority of viewers are players (or would be players if they didn't watch), THIS is the difference that will make sc2 a true success internationally. No longer do you have to be a good RTS player or really understand the game to even begin to see what's going on in the game. Fact, people like to watch what they can understand. People can watch sc2 who couldn't even begin to watch BW (i'm completely disregarding graphics btw, since they could always make BW 2.0 as many of you seem to want). This is more relating to esports as a success vs as a game, but it is still a very important point. BW is a simpler game than SC2. Just saying. simpler in some ways, but much tougher to understand at higher levels and much tougher to even attempt to pick up and play. The average person could pick up sc2 and be able to understand what's happening rather quickly, or even after watching a few well commentated game could pick up some of the ideas. To get near that same level for viewing BW you'd need to spend extensive time and put a commitment into it. Which will never happen until esports reaches the point it doesn't need to persuade, because it's already there.
Its actually quite the opposite when it comes to viewership which is what you are pointing out.
Just think about what is involved in macro in BW and SC2. Which one is easier to understand?
|
i'm done with this topic because now everone is confused by ninja edits. I'll come back in like 30 mins when it's not an issue :p
I'm sorry, I was being unclear. I intended 'both games' to encompass BW and SC2, not SC2 and chess. It's true when you say that SC2 leans more towards the strategy side than the mechanics side. That still doesn't mean that the strategy in SC2 is deeper and more complex that the strategy in BW, which has had a decade longer to develop. I can't say if in 10 years SC2 will be more strategically complex than BW ever was, but right now that is not the case.
I see a lot of higher strategy currently in sc2 then i see in most but the VERY highest level of BW, i dont know where you see the opposite.
Its actually quite the opposite when it comes to viewership which is what you are pointing out.
Just think about what is involved in macro in BW and SC2. Which one is easier to understand?
they are relatively similar actually. most casual viewers wouldn't even need to understand most of sc2 macro to understand what they would see from watching it. There is of course a slight difference in say, zerg macro, where it might be more complicated in sc2 then in BW. Things like chrono boost and mules/scans can always be summed up in simple sentences that mean no extra difficulty to understand. Like "missing chronos are bad, because they speed up production) and "mules and scans come from same energy source and as such must be used efficiently, because every scan means a lost mule", which later translates to in their minds "mules/scans good, but can't do both".
|
|
|
On November 25 2011 12:36 darklight54321 wrote:i'm done with this topic because now everone is confused by ninja edits. I'll come back in like 30 mins when it's not an issue :p Show nested quote +
I'm sorry, I was being unclear. I intended 'both games' to encompass BW and SC2, not SC2 and chess. It's true when you say that SC2 leans more towards the strategy side than the mechanics side. That still doesn't mean that the strategy in SC2 is deeper and more complex that the strategy in BW, which has had a decade longer to develop. I can't say if in 10 years SC2 will be more strategically complex than BW ever was, but right now that is not the case.
I see a lot of higher strategy currently in sc2 then i see in most but the VERY highest level of BW, i dont know where you see the opposite. Show nested quote + Its actually quite the opposite when it comes to viewership which is what you are pointing out.
Just think about what is involved in macro in BW and SC2. Which one is easier to understand? they are relatively similar actually. most casual viewers wouldn't even need to understand most of sc2 macro to understand what they would see from watching it. There is of course a slight difference in say, zerg macro, where it might be more complicated in sc2 then in BW. Things like chrono boost and mules/scans can always be summed up in simple sentences that mean no extra difficulty to understand. Like "missing chronos are bad, because they speed up production) and "mules and scans come from same energy source and as such must be used efficiently, because every scan means a lost mule", which later translates to in their minds "mules/scans good, but can't do both".
Problem is players have almost identical army sizes at most stages of the game. Look at Flash or Best create a massive armies in half the time of other players. That's macro people can really notice. Of course this is not the only way to be good, its just an attribute of Flash. Anyway that's macro that is simple and easy to understand, one where one player has a substantially bigger army than another person. In SC2 you are maxing out so quickly, so its more about remaxing the army, which is not as easy to see and only noticeable when you see a bunch of brief engagements and one player is still reinforcing.
With your argument about top players only creating strategies. There are tonnes of strategic players like sataNik[pG] who are really good (ICCUP A+ / WCG 2007), but no where near close to best in the world (obviously). Heaps of rookies in proleague trumping the top players by playing strategic as well.
|
the main issue with his post is the condemnation he seems to give the game. Also, it seems to contradict a point. he talks about how it focuses on ease of use and offense (EoU is true) but it seems like he goes to the opposite of what most people seem to say especially with the offense. It seems to me like the main isue i that it's not as action packed, wouldn't a game focused on offense be more action packed? He makes some valid points but it's very skewed on most of them.
|
United States1124 Posts
This is a very nice blog post. What's it doing here though? o.o
|
On November 25 2011 12:49 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 12:36 darklight54321 wrote:i'm done with this topic because now everone is confused by ninja edits. I'll come back in like 30 mins when it's not an issue :p
I'm sorry, I was being unclear. I intended 'both games' to encompass BW and SC2, not SC2 and chess. It's true when you say that SC2 leans more towards the strategy side than the mechanics side. That still doesn't mean that the strategy in SC2 is deeper and more complex that the strategy in BW, which has had a decade longer to develop. I can't say if in 10 years SC2 will be more strategically complex than BW ever was, but right now that is not the case.
I see a lot of higher strategy currently in sc2 then i see in most but the VERY highest level of BW, i dont know where you see the opposite. Its actually quite the opposite when it comes to viewership which is what you are pointing out.
Just think about what is involved in macro in BW and SC2. Which one is easier to understand? they are relatively similar actually. most casual viewers wouldn't even need to understand most of sc2 macro to understand what they would see from watching it. There is of course a slight difference in say, zerg macro, where it might be more complicated in sc2 then in BW. Things like chrono boost and mules/scans can always be summed up in simple sentences that mean no extra difficulty to understand. Like "missing chronos are bad, because they speed up production) and "mules and scans come from same energy source and as such must be used efficiently, because every scan means a lost mule", which later translates to in their minds "mules/scans good, but can't do both". Problem is players have almost identical army sizes at most stages of the game. Look at Flash or Best create a massive armies in half the time of other players. That's macro people can really notice. Of course this is not the only way to be good, its just an attribute of Flash. Anyway that's macro that is simple and easy to understand, one where one player has a substantially bigger army than another person. In SC2 you are maxing out so quickly, so its more about remaxing the army, which is not as easy to see and only noticeable when you see a bunch of brief engagements and one player is still reinforcing. With your argument about top players only creating strategies. There are tonnes of strategic players like sataNik[pG] who are really good (ICCUP A+ / WCG 2007), but no where near close to best in the world (obviously). Heaps of rookies in proleague trumping the top players by playing strategic as well.
Not as noticable? i feel like macro is obviously notable. While yes, the flash magic is a clear exception, similar things happen in sc2 through different things. Your main issue with sc2 is more about the focus on macro as in workers and maximizing amount of workers to gain the best economy as safely as it can, vs whatever your opinion of BW macro should be like.
i believe i covered your second paragraph with the talk about how the mechanics is the underlaying line of BW though. You can't be at the very highest without the very highest mechanics. BW is simply mechanics > strategy until you reach pro level, and a that point it's still so heavily mechanics based that strategy is on the backburner. Its simple, when people are asked what one difference there is between sc2/BW its the mechanics. it's simpler in SC2 and easier.
|
On November 25 2011 12:52 darklight54321 wrote:the main issue with his post is the condemnation he seems to give the game. Also, it seems to contradict a point. he talks about how it focuses on ease of use and offense (EoU is true) but it seems like he goes to the opposite of what most people seem to say especially with the offense. It seems to me like the main isue i that it's not as action packed, wouldn't a game focused on offense be more action packed? He makes some valid points but it's very skewed on most of them.
That's the entire point of his post. Call it the offensive advantage paradox.
By removing defenders advantage,
- Players will be afraid to engage, because if their army dies they cannot defend at all
- Players will be afraid to split up their army, because their army needs to be 100% efficient to engage
-- 1st Corollary, a marine drop can be remaxed very quickly so this does not count, where are talking about having chunks of armies around the map
On November 25 2011 12:56 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 12:49 sluggaslamoo wrote:On November 25 2011 12:36 darklight54321 wrote:i'm done with this topic because now everone is confused by ninja edits. I'll come back in like 30 mins when it's not an issue :p
I'm sorry, I was being unclear. I intended 'both games' to encompass BW and SC2, not SC2 and chess. It's true when you say that SC2 leans more towards the strategy side than the mechanics side. That still doesn't mean that the strategy in SC2 is deeper and more complex that the strategy in BW, which has had a decade longer to develop. I can't say if in 10 years SC2 will be more strategically complex than BW ever was, but right now that is not the case.
I see a lot of higher strategy currently in sc2 then i see in most but the VERY highest level of BW, i dont know where you see the opposite. Its actually quite the opposite when it comes to viewership which is what you are pointing out.
Just think about what is involved in macro in BW and SC2. Which one is easier to understand? they are relatively similar actually. most casual viewers wouldn't even need to understand most of sc2 macro to understand what they would see from watching it. There is of course a slight difference in say, zerg macro, where it might be more complicated in sc2 then in BW. Things like chrono boost and mules/scans can always be summed up in simple sentences that mean no extra difficulty to understand. Like "missing chronos are bad, because they speed up production) and "mules and scans come from same energy source and as such must be used efficiently, because every scan means a lost mule", which later translates to in their minds "mules/scans good, but can't do both". Problem is players have almost identical army sizes at most stages of the game. Look at Flash or Best create a massive armies in half the time of other players. That's macro people can really notice. Of course this is not the only way to be good, its just an attribute of Flash. Anyway that's macro that is simple and easy to understand, one where one player has a substantially bigger army than another person. In SC2 you are maxing out so quickly, so its more about remaxing the army, which is not as easy to see and only noticeable when you see a bunch of brief engagements and one player is still reinforcing. With your argument about top players only creating strategies. There are tonnes of strategic players like sataNik[pG] who are really good (ICCUP A+ / WCG 2007), but no where near close to best in the world (obviously). Heaps of rookies in proleague trumping the top players by playing strategic as well. Not as noticable? i feel like macro is obviously notable. While yes, the flash magic is a clear exception, similar things happen in sc2 through different things. Your main issue with sc2 is more about the focus on macro as in workers and maximizing amount of workers to gain the best economy as safely as it can, vs whatever your opinion of BW macro should be like. i believe i covered your second paragraph with the talk about how the mechanics is the underlaying line of BW though. You can't be at the very highest without the very highest mechanics. BW is simply mechanics > strategy until you reach pro level, and a that point it's still so heavily mechanics based that strategy is on the backburner. Its simple, when people are asked what one difference there is between sc2/BW its the mechanics. it's simpler in SC2 and easier.
You are getting confused with emphasis and deepness. SC2 emphasises strategy over mechanics, doesn't mean that the strategy part is better than BW.
There are plenty of strategic players at the top level in BW.
Stork and Savior have less apm than the average SC2 player. about ~200-230apm. Savior was nicknamed Ma Bonjwa. Stork is one of the four pillars of current broodwar. You can be the best at BW if you are good at strategy, tactics, or mechanics, it doesn't matter. Even Flash will develop 3 brand new strategies in every Bo5 final.
MVP has arguably the best mechanics of any SC2 player, also being the best player to come from BW (besides ForGG). What does that say about SC2, and the notion of strategy > mechanics?
Really you need to stop posting, learn about BW first, and then make a response that isn't extremely ignorant to say the least.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236
|
Baa?21244 Posts
darklight you should really stop pretending to understand BW when trying to make your point because it's obvious you haven't watched a single game of BW in your life, let alone understand what the highest level of strategy is, and no way do you understand BW well enough to make a comparison with SC2.
There's nothing wrong with defending SC2, but just stop pretending to understand BW at anything more than a cursory level, it just makes your posts look silly.
On November 25 2011 12:56 darklight54321 wrote:
BW is simply mechanics > strategy until you reach pro level, and a that point it's still so heavily mechanics based that strategy is on the backburner.
Another example of where you went wrong ;d
|
With sc2 I just can't appreciate the microness of the game. It feels like it's purposely taken out notch down the skill level a lot. Remember when boxer killed a lurked with a micro marine. Or boxers dropship tank micro? Or even his plan to get mass medics so he can blind all the observers so they could not detect cloaked wraiths? They were brilliant. With sc2 I have not seen something as awesome as that. Sure there might be a nuke or a mothership in the game, but I just don't get why people orgasm over those nukes and mothership so much. It seems with sc2 blizzard is trying to actively force a style of game in sc2. Imagine if blizzard never patch the mineral bug update and a Korean actually used that as a skill to get 7% extra minerals for the whole. Now it's hard to pull off whole game but I know. A Korean would practice it constantly to give them an edge. It would be exciting to see because real hard work should be rewarded, not being lucky like in most match ups
|
I never said i really did understand it at a high high level, but it seems stupid to me that i keep getting told "this is why BW is better" and then when something new comes up that goes against this idea, theres no issue about the previous thing ending up being wrong. Most of what i'm saying was actaully taken from the BW side of previous topics i used to lurk in.
it honestly seems to me like the BW vs SC2 argument is much like r/bias.
|
On November 25 2011 13:34 darklight54321 wrote:
I never said i really did understand it at a high high level
You sure as hell were implying it heavily, then.
|
On November 25 2011 13:00 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:darklight you should really stop pretending to understand BW when trying to make your point because it's obvious you haven't watched a single game of BW in your life, let alone understand what the highest level of strategy is, and no way do you understand BW well enough to make a comparison with SC2. There's nothing wrong with defending SC2, but just stop pretending to understand BW at anything more than a cursory level, it just makes your posts look silly. Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 12:56 darklight54321 wrote:
BW is simply mechanics > strategy until you reach pro level, and a that point it's still so heavily mechanics based that strategy is on the backburner.
Another example of where you went wrong ;d
The same argument goes both ways. And what he said holds alot of truth, "strategy" in bw is worth much less than having stellar mechanics
|
On November 25 2011 13:49 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 13:00 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:darklight you should really stop pretending to understand BW when trying to make your point because it's obvious you haven't watched a single game of BW in your life, let alone understand what the highest level of strategy is, and no way do you understand BW well enough to make a comparison with SC2. There's nothing wrong with defending SC2, but just stop pretending to understand BW at anything more than a cursory level, it just makes your posts look silly. On November 25 2011 12:56 darklight54321 wrote:
BW is simply mechanics > strategy until you reach pro level, and a that point it's still so heavily mechanics based that strategy is on the backburner.
Another example of where you went wrong ;d The same argument goes both ways.
No cheep is right; mechanics > strategy until high levels in SC2 as well. So, you can't really say that unless you are going to cite something else.
|
1019 Posts
On November 25 2011 13:00 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:darklight you should really stop pretending to understand BW when trying to make your point because it's obvious you haven't watched a single game of BW in your life, let alone understand what the highest level of strategy is, and no way do you understand BW well enough to make a comparison with SC2. There's nothing wrong with defending SC2, but just stop pretending to understand BW at anything more than a cursory level, it just makes your posts look silly. Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 12:56 darklight54321 wrote:
BW is simply mechanics > strategy until you reach pro level, and a that point it's still so heavily mechanics based that strategy is on the backburner.
Another example of where you went wrong ;d
Don't waste your time. I tried to reason why his arguments were flawed with him through pm, but he doesn't get it nor does he want to.
darklight, nobody here is telling you that SC2 sucks and BW is better. They both have their merits. Please stop because you are giving the SC2 community a bad rap.
|
I remember watching mlg on youtube while the stream link was on the frontpage on youtube and there were a lot of people not that familiar with sc2. I think it was mvp vs naniwa and there wasnt a single interaction between the players before like 15 minute mark when they were both maxed. People in the chat kept saying OMG THIS GAME IS BORING and stuff like that and it sort of broke my heart. Yea youtube is notorious for its trolls but I think they had a point, never would you see that kind of lame game in BW where just sitting back and building up like that meant you lose the game.
I rly hope blizz wakes up in HotS, I rly am starting to think that they dont fully understand their own product and dont know what they need to do to make this game as epic as BW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
