Sure, the Boxer vs Rain game will have it's moments in the early to mid game that will have crowds jeering out of their seats, but in the late game it becomes (like I pointed out in my OP) nothing but a waiting game whereas Flash and Fantasy's late game has so much movement going on inside it.
You're picking and choosing. The exact same thing happens in BW (people just flying back and forth with mass air) in TvT super lategame. There's no difference. Namely the BC wars.
The game is so passive because of defender's advantage (or lack of) and because of deathballs. Its easy, if you lose a battle, the enemy's deathball will just roll in your base and kill all. You cannot retreat, because of Marrauders, Blink stalkers and you cannot defend your base with fewer units (Well maybe against Zerg you can)
In BW if you look at a fight, because of the fact that an army was a couple of screens long and ramps were hard to break, a small number of units could defend a big invasion. So what happened was, the players were trying to peal apart the other player by denying expos and out maneuvering him.
In SC2, you just a-move your marrauders after you killed a big chunk of the enemy army and it's gg. Nothing the oponent can do.
On November 27 2011 07:02 okrane wrote: The game is so passive because of defender's advantage (or lack of) and because of deathballs. Its easy, if you lose a battle, the enemy's deathball will just roll in your base and kill all. You cannot retreat, because of Marrauders, Blink stalkers and you cannot defend your base with fewer units (Well maybe against Zerg you can)
In BW if you look at a fight, because of the fact that an army was a couple of screens long and ramps were hard to break, a small number of units could defend a big invasion. So what happened was, the players were trying to peal apart the other player by denying expos and out maneuvering him.
In SC2, you just a-move your marrauders after you killed a big chunk of the enemy army and it's gg. Nothing the oponent can do.
If you lose 60 supply of your army in an engagement BW and your opponent loses... 10... you're going to lose. Sure, he can't a-move right into your base, but you're going to lose unless he messes up big time. You can stall with lurker/defiler, or well place tanks/vessels, but eventually you will lose.
On November 27 2011 00:27 archonOOid wrote: OP has the wrong topic! It should be I dislike the tossball.
OP likes ZvT and TvT but doesn't mention ZvZ or PvP because those match-ups are very aggressive. It leaves out pvz and pvt match-ups which makes me think that OP ha either a negative attitude towards the players or the game design. Both those cases doesn't make for fruitful discussions as he didn't specify why that is but just a problem he has observed. C- piece.
PvZ is becoming great match up because players start to figure out with what they can get away in midgame (zergs aggressively expanding and forcing some response from toss who choose massive tech and harass).
PvT will become fun as well once protoss will understand that they need faster third for that extra gas otherwise they'll continue struggling to fight 2 vs 2 base against bio-terrans while slowly expanding. Such kind of play favours terran a lot.
PvT will become really boring once people realize that sitting on 3-4 bases with a deathball and accumulating money + gateways is the best way to play. Mana and Hasuobs have been doing this for the last 8-10 months, and they rarely lose PvT.
But no, we're still gonna have idiots doing 2base allins and then complaining about balance once it stops working.
I doubt it, protoss has been sitting in base and deathball since start of beta. it isn't working.
Mainly because you're just not going to beat zerg in terms of econ, you let him free to drones up and he'll destroy you before you even know whats up. Future of PvZ will be very similar to TvZ that you need to constantly harass and timing attacks
For those of you that haven't watched Hero vs Sheth, I suggest you check it once vods are out
On November 27 2011 07:02 okrane wrote: The game is so passive because of defender's advantage (or lack of) and because of deathballs. Its easy, if you lose a battle, the enemy's deathball will just roll in your base and kill all. You cannot retreat, because of Marrauders, Blink stalkers and you cannot defend your base with fewer units (Well maybe against Zerg you can)
In BW if you look at a fight, because of the fact that an army was a couple of screens long and ramps were hard to break, a small number of units could defend a big invasion. So what happened was, the players were trying to peal apart the other player by denying expos and out maneuvering him.
In SC2, you just a-move your marrauders after you killed a big chunk of the enemy army and it's gg. Nothing the oponent can do.
If you lose 60 supply of your army in an engagement BW and your opponent loses... 10... you're going to lose. Sure, he can't a-move right into your base, but you're going to lose unless he messes up big time. You can stall with lurker/defiler, or well place tanks/vessels, but eventually you will lose.
Besides, SC2 IS STILL SUCH A YOUNG GAME.
agreed mistakes make you pay, that's the nature of competitive games. This does not make my statement untrue.
On November 27 2011 07:02 okrane wrote: The game is so passive because of defender's advantage (or lack of) and because of deathballs. Its easy, if you lose a battle, the enemy's deathball will just roll in your base and kill all. You cannot retreat, because of Marrauders, Blink stalkers and you cannot defend your base with fewer units (Well maybe against Zerg you can)
In BW if you look at a fight, because of the fact that an army was a couple of screens long and ramps were hard to break, a small number of units could defend a big invasion. So what happened was, the players were trying to peal apart the other player by denying expos and out maneuvering him.
In SC2, you just a-move your marrauders after you killed a big chunk of the enemy army and it's gg. Nothing the oponent can do.
If you lose 60 supply of your army in an engagement BW and your opponent loses... 10... you're going to lose. Sure, he can't a-move right into your base, but you're going to lose unless he messes up big time. You can stall with lurker/defiler, or well place tanks/vessels, but eventually you will lose.
Besides, SC2 IS STILL SUCH A YOUNG GAME.
agreed mistakes make you pay, that's the nature of competitive games. This does not make my statement untrue.
...
okay?
So we agree that losing half your army for almost nothing in both games means you lose, yeah? It doesn't matter how fast you lose, you still lose.
On November 27 2011 07:02 okrane wrote: The game is so passive because of defender's advantage (or lack of) and because of deathballs. Its easy, if you lose a battle, the enemy's deathball will just roll in your base and kill all. You cannot retreat, because of Marrauders, Blink stalkers and you cannot defend your base with fewer units (Well maybe against Zerg you can)
In BW if you look at a fight, because of the fact that an army was a couple of screens long and ramps were hard to break, a small number of units could defend a big invasion. So what happened was, the players were trying to peal apart the other player by denying expos and out maneuvering him.
In SC2, you just a-move your marrauders after you killed a big chunk of the enemy army and it's gg. Nothing the oponent can do.
If you lose 60 supply of your army in an engagement BW and your opponent loses... 10... you're going to lose. Sure, he can't a-move right into your base, but you're going to lose unless he messes up big time. You can stall with lurker/defiler, or well place tanks/vessels, but eventually you will lose.
Besides, SC2 IS STILL SUCH A YOUNG GAME.
agreed mistakes make you pay, that's the nature of competitive games. This does not make my statement untrue.
...
okay?
So we agree that losing half your army for almost nothing in both games means you lose, yeah? It doesn't matter how fast you lose, you still lose.
because of the fact that half of your army is three fucking screen wide, losing half of it is a big feat. In SC2 you can lose half of your army to even three forcefields.
On November 27 2011 07:23 BandonBanshee wrote: can we stop using "SC2 IS A YOUNG GAME" as an excuse for glaring problems with it?
....
Can you compare BW after 1.5/2 years to BW now?
Honestly...
How is that even a remotely comparable scenario? There were no esports back then. Nothing was figured out. No set build orders, etc.
SC2 has progressed more in 1.5 years than BW has progressed over its first 7 or so years. Because there wer already tournaments at release, extensive balance testing, progamers in prohouses playing 12+ hours a day, etc.
Utterly laughable to compare it to BW where there were no progamers, no intricate knowledge of RTS in general, etc. SC2 has been "figured out" faster than any RTS in history most likely.
the metagame is quite slow at the moment on ladder, but im measly gold haha! Watching DH finals with Hero and Puma.. not to spoil it but some of the flanks and general back and forth really shows you it is probably the lower levels where its slow. up high its pretty intense!
On November 26 2011 10:22 emc wrote: this game is so new compared to BW it's not even funny. And this game isn't even like BW except for the basic mechanics, so to think that people will be as innovative in BW with only a year of sc2 experience is rediculous! let's wait a couple years before we go on and make these kinds of threads.
2 months ago we didn't even see protoss harassment and everyone was convinced that blizzard needed to add a harassment unit for protoss, now we see warp prism harass being extremely effective and it's used by a lot of players now. We used to never see hellions or mech in TvT but that obviously all changed as well, and now TvT is changing out of mech and is becoming an incredibly diverse match up, so is PvP.
As I said, I can't see how we can compare BW, a game where people have had 10 years to perfect themselves to SC2 where everyone is still figuring shit out and we still have expansions to go through like SC1 -> BW.
Everytime I see the "SC2 is so new, BW had 10 years to develop not fair to compare!!" argument, I can't help palm my forehead. SC2 and BW are extremely similar games, with very few (key) differences, but the basic strategic frame from BW is there in SC2, along with many of the strategies/tactics employed in BW.
I can't agree with that, even the best SC1 players aren't succeeding in this game. Why hasn't July, Nada, Boxer won a SC2 title yet? If the games are so similar then shouldn't they be winning? No, because the game IS different, even if you use the "they are older" argument, look at Nestea as an example of an old guy who is still winning because he is treating SC2 as a different game from BW.
Yea some of the same tactics are there, but a lot of things are different, even economy management is slightly different with chronoboost, larva inject and mules. Macro is easier which allows for more micro in a game where the ai is too good and one small mistep can ruin everything. New units changes everything and these new units are still being figured out. Like I said before, ghosts, warp prisms and battlecruisers were once never used, now they are (still waiting on the carrier and the nydus worm hasn't been getting much attention either). Granted after a year it seems like things in sc2 are figured out, but people thought that BW wouldn't change until great players changed it all.
I'm not saying SC2 is better, I'm not saying BW is a bad game. I'm just sick of these arguments because people keep comparing an old game to a new game, where almost everything is different. Just think about the two games and don't compare strategies or tactics, compare all the things that blizzard has added and taken away instead.
On November 26 2011 10:22 emc wrote: this game is so new compared to BW it's not even funny. And this game isn't even like BW except for the basic mechanics, so to think that people will be as innovative in BW with only a year of sc2 experience is rediculous! let's wait a couple years before we go on and make these kinds of threads.
2 months ago we didn't even see protoss harassment and everyone was convinced that blizzard needed to add a harassment unit for protoss, now we see warp prism harass being extremely effective and it's used by a lot of players now. We used to never see hellions or mech in TvT but that obviously all changed as well, and now TvT is changing out of mech and is becoming an incredibly diverse match up, so is PvP.
As I said, I can't see how we can compare BW, a game where people have had 10 years to perfect themselves to SC2 where everyone is still figuring shit out and we still have expansions to go through like SC1 -> BW.
Everytime I see the "SC2 is so new, BW had 10 years to develop not fair to compare!!" argument, I can't help palm my forehead. SC2 and BW are extremely similar games, with very few (key) differences, but the basic strategic frame from BW is there in SC2, along with many of the strategies/tactics employed in BW.
I can't agree with that, even the best SC1 players aren't succeeding in this game. Why hasn't July, Nada, Boxer won a SC2 title yet? If the games are so similar then shouldn't they be winning? No, because the game IS different, even if you use the "they are older" argument, look at Nestea as an example of an old guy who is still winning because he is treating SC2 as a different game from BW.
Yea some of the same tactics are there, but a lot of things are different, even economy management is slightly different with chronoboost, larva inject and mules. Macro is easier which allows for more micro in a game where the ai is too good and one small mistep can ruin everything. New units changes everything and these new units are still being figured out. Like I said before, ghosts, warp prisms and battlecruisers were once never used, now they are (still waiting on the carrier and the nydus worm hasn't been getting much attention either). Granted after a year it seems like things in sc2 are figured out, but people thought that BW wouldn't change until great players changed it all.
I'm not saying SC2 is better, I'm not saying BW is a bad game. I'm just sick of these arguments because people keep comparing an old game to a new game, where almost everything is different. Just think about the two games and don't compare strategies or tactics, compare all the things that blizzard has added and taken away instead.
What are you talking about? You clearly never watched BW.
July, Boxer, and Nada were not A-teamers when they switched. Players such as MVP were without a doubt better than Boxer/Nada/July. No one, with the exception of possibly Nada (who still wasn't A-team) was considered "good" towards the end.
I still remember a Bo5 between July and Flash, where July successfully all-ined Flash 3 games in a row, and Flash still went 3-0, despite being successfully allined and taking massive damage. That's how big the skill gap was, you can do MAJOR dmg with those attacks and still not close ANY of them.
You can not call any of them "the best players from Brood War." Boxer hadn't been on the A team since what, 2005?
On November 23 2011 18:50 JieXian wrote: TLDR : The people who have spent a lot of time with both games know when one feels inferior. It's not that they want it to be that way. I'm sure everyone wants sc2 to be a success, I'd have embraced BW dying and sc2 taking over. But not when SC2 turns out to be like this.
SC2 is a resounding success.
Please stop posting "SC2 is inferior" on the SC2 forums. It's really, really annoying and counterproductive.
As someone who doesn't belong to the "people who have spent lot of time with both games" (based on the date you joined and by reading your posts), you aren't getting the point.
Let me redefine what I mean about "success" - not in terms of popularity but quality. In this definition, Justin Bieber won't be considered as a musical "success". Not that SC2 is as bad as him but it's a success (according to your definition), it's dumbed down.
SC2 is popular because of the money put in and the hoards of people who have never seen BW before and all the foreigners from wc3 and bw who follow the money pumped in by -- Blizzard themselves. In BW, it was the korean companies themselves who became sponsors - because a game became something more. One of the reasons BW wasn't very popular outside of Korea is because people care more about graphics. Trust me, I've trie getting a lot of people to watch or play BW and the first thing they comment about is the graphics, before the gameplay.
And when I say SC2 is inferior. I mean it but not in an elitist or dismissive way, but, if you actually read what I posted without getting all hurt, as someone who wants SC2 to be better, to be the replacement so that everyone can enjoy something at the level (or even higher) of BW because it reaches a wider audience and has good graphics, instantly appealing to the casual gamer. Thing is, watching the direction they are taking makes me disappointed.
Oh ya and I didn't just waltz into a random SC2 thread and called it inferior like a troll. Read the OP please.
Edit: And I (and most people I'd suppose), will be very happy to be proven wrong that SC2 is inferior when the day comes.
What quantifiable measurement, what number, what threshold must be met before you would admit SC2 is as good or better than BroodWar?
Number of audience members at tournaments? Number of tournaments? Number of countries holding tournaments? Number of years tournaments are held? Amount of prize money given out? Number of companies sponsoring pro players? Amount of money earned by pro players? Number of units of the game sold?
Or maybe you're more interested in numbers related directly to the game itself so perhaps: Average duration of pro games? Average number of units killed in pro games? Average number of engagements in pro games?
We can discuss numbers solidly and logically, but it's hard to discuss individuals' qualitative, gut-level requirements for satisfaction.
How can you quantify music? Take Justin Bieber vs your favourite band, let's say Led Zep just because a lot of people like them but you can interchange it with any band/singer you like. Of course assuming you think Justin Bieber is inferior to Led Zep, otherwise feel free to swap anyone with anyone else, especially effective for someone inferior + famous vs superior + not famous.
Using the above example I'm sure we all can agree that 1 is inferior than the other. Then try reposing all your questions again.
Number of audience members at concerts? Number of concerts? Number of countries holding concerts? Number of years concerts are held? Amount of prize money given out? (N/A) Maybe Amount paid for concerts? Number of companies sponsoring? Amount of money earned? Number of units of the albums sold?
Or maybe you're more interested in numbers related directly to the song itself so perhaps: Average duration of songs? Average number of notes or words in songs? Average number of hooks in songs?
This is a game, some say an art. The moment you can quantify it the way you seem to want it I think it ceases being one. I don't and don't know how to get philosophical about it but in short I think we can agree it doesn't feel right to do it. So no, I can't prove it using your methods.
Think about other ("real and legit") sports. How can you quantify them? Take my earlier slamball vs basketball comparison. Or maybe even this NBA vs WNBA one (let's put gender differences aside). I pasted the first plays of the year highlights I found
If you watch those 2 plays of the year videos, you'll know something feels wrong, the women are inferior. But how can you quantify that? Their dunks aren't flashy? How can you quantify flashiness?
Hang time? Movement of arms? Strength and force used to slam it in?
I should have been more clear on the point I was trying to make. There are people in this thread (and other BW vs SC2 threads) who are essentially saying "I don't like SC2, it's boring, it's a terrible game."
But when you count up the amount of people currently paying to watch pro sc2 games, the amount of sponsorship money going to players, and the amount of tournaments worldwide (MLG, Dreamhack, IEM, IPL...), it shows that many people find the game entertaining and enjoy watching it.
I don't like Baseball, but I don't go to Baseball forums to tell people why I think it's a boring game. Or, using your example of Justin Bieber vs Led Zepplin - would you go to Bieber forums to try and convince them he sucks and they should listen to something else? If they have a good time listening to him, then who cares?
Puma vs Hero, you call that passive? Lets rename the thread. If your a noob sc2 is passive, if your pro, you micro and macro....AT THE SAME TIME....removes glasses...Mother of god!
EPT
