On November 23 2011 18:06 haflo wrote: Whats up with BW fans , and their special need to come to SC2 forums and whine about something that is less good then BW.
If you going to get one thing from this post take this Giving an example does not prove the rule never ever ,that is very stupid thing to do.
given: passive TvT - rain vs boxer counter: Active TvT - MvP vs MMA
given: passive PVt - socke counter: sage / hero
i can do it with Z players as well... with ease
what does it tell me ? more about the style of the players then anything else for now...
why the hell do you link games for BW ? i find tennis quite boring personally , but i can link you from the last 10 years some very interesting games, does it say anything about tennis as a game as a spectator sport for me ?
I think this thread belong with the - "SC2 can never go more then one base" , "Sc2 has very low ceiling - everyone will cap it in half a year" , "SC2 have no micro , AI is too good" "In SC2 everyone will have perfect macro - its too easy!" "I need my units to be unable to go from A to B without babysit each and every one of them , and UI and control and graphics which belong to the stone age in order for a game to it to be any good ,fuck blizzard!" And i have one common though about those threads today - very stupid statements.
If you cannot enjoy SC2 i personally feel truly sorry for you , its a beautiful game and getting better repeatedly I wish BW will be there forever for you , but please less silly threads ...
really i would think that BW will have the most patience and brains to give SC2 its time to grow , but i guess its too hard to expect it from nostalgia vision people to actually see the progress and know that as BW grew , so will SC2. and its very silly to expect sc2 meta game to be at bw level at this age ...
And i think the huge amount of spectators and fans is really the only proof you need that SC2 has great potential and produce some beautiful games.
It's like saying okay that xxxxx sport is good because every one's playing that game because there is a lot of people ? Point taken maybe that's your standard of what is a good sport is , However for me , I am going on the basis what's my standard and you many not like it and that doesn't mean that everyone has to follow what the majority does just because it's liked by many people . Twilight for example.
Have people watched sc2 lately in this thread? I've yet to see good examples of this "1a vs 1a" syndrome or even super passive play in sc2. BW had a lot more passive play, what with standard PvZ fast expand (Can anyone name the last time a 2 hatch hydra worked out?) TvP gasless expand (Dragoons attacking a bunker while scvs repair forever doesn't count as "action") TvZ 14cc/1 rax expo (When was the last time a terran opened 2 rax?)
For instance in the last GSL finals, MVP vs MMA, were nail biting games of bionic vs mech, of which 2 ended in a base race, as well as 2 games of cheese. Also any zvz game has been ridiculous, with baneling/speedling creating such a volatile matchup. A good example would be Leenock's last ZvZ at MLG. Nowhere have I seen this fabled "Macro to 200/200, a-move, roll dice to decide victor". Even in this thread, no one has shown a good sc2 example of the "problems" the OP is seeing.
So, please, would someone show some good example games where we can see the supposed "problems" in action? Showing brood war games is good and all, but hardly relevant to sc2.
On November 23 2011 18:15 stink123 wrote: Have people watched sc2 lately in this thread? I've yet to see good examples of this "1a vs 1a" syndrome or even super passive play in sc2. BW had a lot more passive play, what with standard PvZ fast expand (Can anyone name the last time a 2 hatch hydra worked out?) TvP gasless expand (Dragoons attacking a bunker while scvs repair forever doesn't count as "action") TvZ 14cc/1 rax expo (When was the last time a terran opened 2 rax?)
For instance in the last GSL finals, MVP vs MMA, were nail biting games of bionic vs mech, of which 2 ended in a base race, as well as 2 games of cheese. Also any zvz game has been ridiculous, with baneling/speedling creating such a volatile matchup. A good example would be Leenock's last ZvZ at MLG. Nowhere have I seen this fabled "Macro to 200/200, a-move, roll dice to decide victor". Even in this thread, no one has shown a good sc2 example of the "problems" the OP is seeing.
So, please, would someone show some good example games where we can see the supposed "problems" in action? Showing brood war games is good and all, but hardly relevant to sc2.
I am in the process of watching CheckPrime going 1a vs 1a, roaches vs stalkers. In a BW PvZ you would be seeing corsairs hunting overlords and scouting, scourges chasing them, mutas taking out HTs, zealot/storm drops, lurkers leapfrogging, zealot micro vs hydra micro, archons vs mutas by now.
Edit: And after a few 1a vs 1a battles, he has just got owned by the Protoss ball of death.
my comment here will probably get ignored by 99% of you out there, but i still want to say what i want to say:
Lets wait for the rest of the expansions, THEN we can talk about how or in which way the game can be more interesting
why you might ask?
because of this: from Starcraft Vanilla to Broodwar: for Protoss: Dark templars got into the game as an über harassment unit / viable from reavers Corsairs (well it did take a damn long time for it to be very useful, even tho it was tried to be used in PvT(web tanks), but with less sucess IMO) Dark Archon, not very used, but used in some epic games, especially vs zerg where you could mealstrom a bunch of zerg units and blast them to death! you kinda only used mind control in the end just to mock your opponent
for zerg: Lurkers, HERES the fact, Lurkers, meaning that the game totally shifted in term of how to play ZvT. Used for er period to contain your protoss opponent as well Devourers: didnt really do shit, but still used in some circumstances as anti air
for terran: Medics: playing without medics in TvZ now thesedays is a surcide (considering not going metal, but bio only). been into the game ever since Valkyrie: not very used, actually i didnt really see anything in them until fantasy build.
but the fact is that this expansion alone made the game not totally different, but different in term how to approach your game. Lets see what SC2 expansions will bring us, because as soon it will be released, ill expect a "different kind of game", if not, then blizzard have IMO failed to make an multiplayerable expansion.
EDIT: not immediately, ofcourse we should give it time to evolve, but i think there will be a timelimit for that as well.
On November 23 2011 18:15 stink123 wrote: Have people watched sc2 lately in this thread? I've yet to see good examples of this "1a vs 1a" syndrome or even super passive play in sc2. BW had a lot more passive play, what with standard PvZ fast expand (Can anyone name the last time a 2 hatch hydra worked out?) TvP gasless expand (Dragoons attacking a bunker while scvs repair forever doesn't count as "action") TvZ 14cc/1 rax expo (When was the last time a terran opened 2 rax?)
For instance in the last GSL finals, MVP vs MMA, were nail biting games of bionic vs mech, of which 2 ended in a base race, as well as 2 games of cheese. Also any zvz game has been ridiculous, with baneling/speedling creating such a volatile matchup. A good example would be Leenock's last ZvZ at MLG. Nowhere have I seen this fabled "Macro to 200/200, a-move, roll dice to decide victor". Even in this thread, no one has shown a good sc2 example of the "problems" the OP is seeing.
So, please, would someone show some good example games where we can see the supposed "problems" in action? Showing brood war games is good and all, but hardly relevant to sc2.
I agree with this guy, partly because all the time games are becoming LESS 1a vs 1a ish, with more and more aggression all game long, with the introduction into styles like warp prisms by almost all protosses now, with the mass drop styles of MMA and Select.
To all the people complaining about infinite unit selection and unit clumping: Undoubtably, at lower levels this makes the game easier, but to be the best, against the power of aoe spells like storm fungal and emp, you need to split your units constantly, just watch streams of players and you see it. Every time you move your army to a new position you need to instead of just using 1 apm that people seem to be saying you actually have to box and split like ten times. Every time you move.
I'm not saying that it is harder than BW. It's not. I have gone back and played a few games of BW recently, i'd almost forgotten how hard it is, but these are different games with different ways to be skillful. Get over it. The game is STILL CHANGING, and i don't mean heart of the swarm.
On November 23 2011 13:37 Jojo131 wrote: I've always found that that the commentators are what make BW seem really exciting all game long. We need that kind of commentary in SC2
The sc2 commentators are already trying hard to pretend to be excited.... and I feel for artosis and Tasteless in these cases. It's their job to make things interesting, so they have to pretend/ exaggerate.
-------------- I played sc2 for some time eventhough I didn't like how it felt so much shallower. Since my friend didn't want to play BW back, I stayed in sc2 too. (Can't play on iccup for some reason).
Then 1 day I came across the sc2bw mod here.... wow I really felt the difference. Despite MBS and Unlimited unit selection, the game still feels so much harder (and as a result, deeper) It was then I asked myself why am I trying hard to like SC2 and be so frustrated when I already have BW.
Actually I got into BW from wc3 about 4 years ago because as I was playing wc3 I watched some BW and I slowly found myself spending more time (and being more eager) watching BW. After several times back and forth because sc was too hard and my friends were playing wc3 (Had a 4-32 score on iccup >_>) I finally made the switch.
Looking where they are heading now and their ..... ridiculous mindset in general makes me feel the same way when I was playing the game.
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.
On November 23 2011 13:05 SkimGuy wrote: EsuBuildings xd I posted this like 3 months ago on Gamefaqs. Its basically because everyone is lazy and rather max out before doing any type of harassment. The game I used to demonstrate the amount of action that is possible in BW is game 1 of n.Die_soO vs JangBi in the OSL semis:
I bet you're unable to find that much action in any SC2 game xd
Wow. Wow. The battle in the middle took FOREVER and was epic. Also, I noticed that the battle became epic from the start, with a few hydras + lurkers and zerglings vs a handful of zealots dragoons and templars.So intense and a lot of micro. I have to agree that in SC2 roach vs stalkers look terrible terrible dull.
I've always found that that the commentators are what make BW seem really exciting all game long. We need that kind of commentary in SC2
Agreed. Also, don't know if all the fans are korean boys with girly voices but there was A LOT of female screaming during most of the game. Jangbi must be getting so much pussy.
Watch Liquid`Hero do some macro builds, I guarantee he will be aggressive throughout the game whether it be warp prism, proxy pylon zealot warp in to deny a zergs third some awesome phoenix harassment or fake pushes as the game progresses more it will happen more.
Do people honestly think big maps is the best solution to this? Protoss with their warpgate mechanic would give them such an advantage due to ignoring the rush distance all together. Builds such as T mech for instance will get punished due to the lack of immobility to defend, lack of strong static defense/zone control makes it even harder to defend outlying expansions and will cause even more so "over extending" in SC2. I could see mutas in PvZ having a field day going from base to base.
Basically due to the severely weakened defensive units like tanks and no defenders advantage e.g cliff, along with severely enhanced harassing options, the whole death ball syndrome will not end. Players have NO incentive to split up their units because in SC2 there is hardly any situations where a small amount of units can defend their position or even buy some time against the onslaught of the full enemy army. If they could, then we would see multiple armies with a core army fighting across the map. BW makes this happen, where its successor SC2 does not. The need for so many workers + high supply count doesn't make this help either (im guessing this is mainly due to dumbing down the game + making it easy for alot of computers i.e lowering requirements).
However Ive also been thinking about something that could change the game to be more exciting. What if blizzard got rid of smart cast? The potential behind this could mean more emphasis on units (troops) themselves and less emphasis on spell casters. This means that although spellcasters still do play a support role, they dont play the MAIN role e.g emp in TvP which would determine the fight most of the time. This would reward players that can micro their spell casters (pulling it off would be such an epic moment) while also becoming a risk since they might not even get anything off. It would also allow spells to be more devestating since using them during battle will be difficult WHILE the core army will now consist mainly of fighting troops and not spell casters like WC3.
You wont have ridiculous builds like ling/blings and MASS infestors, or mass ghosts late game + spells wont have to be nerfed right left center.
On November 23 2011 18:59 MrJargon wrote: Watch Liquid`Hero do some macro builds, I guarantee he will be aggressive throughout the game whether it be warp prism, proxy pylon zealot warp in to deny a zergs third some awesome phoenix harassment or fake pushes as the game progresses more it will happen more.
Yeah, but I often wonder if Heros style is providing results just because no one expects a warp prism, or 4 zealots in their base from a protoss, a race that is bad at harassing . It's really,really easy to deny that kind of harass if you practice for it. When he won vs idra the game that he should have lost it was just because that, idra did not expect it and he did no know how to handle it under the pressure. Microing 2 warpprism on other sides of the map great talent toi have.
What i did not like from the start of SC2, but just accommodated with as time went by was, the worker count needed to mine the same number as you would in BW. I was feeling cheated into believing that I have a 200/200 army when in reality I have 70 workers. And many of the army units cost 2 supply or a lot higher. So I really have half of the expected army. And I blame all of this in their fear of the game not running as it should on low end pcs. Fuck that, I want massive armies not small blobs of clumped units.
On November 23 2011 18:06 haflo wrote: Whats up with BW fans , and their special need to come to SC2 forums and whine about something that is less good then BW.
If you going to get one thing from this post take this Giving an example does not prove the rule never ever ,that is very stupid thing to do.
given: passive TvT - rain vs boxer counter: Active TvT - MvP vs MMA
given: passive PVt - socke counter: sage / hero
i can do it with Z players as well... with ease
what does it tell me ? more about the style of the players then anything else for now...
why the hell do you link games for BW ? i find tennis quite boring personally , but i can link you from the last 10 years some very interesting games, does it say anything about tennis as a game as a spectator sport for me ?
I think this thread belong with the - "SC2 can never go more then one base" , "Sc2 has very low ceiling - everyone will cap it in half a year" , "SC2 have no micro , AI is too good" "In SC2 everyone will have perfect macro - its too easy!" "I need my units to be unable to go from A to B without babysit each and every one of them , and UI and control and graphics which belong to the stone age in order for a game to it to be any good ,fuck blizzard!" And i have one common though about those threads today - very stupid statements.
If you cannot enjoy SC2 i personally feel truly sorry for you , its a beautiful game and getting better repeatedly I wish BW will be there forever for you , but please less silly threads ...
really i would think that BW will have the most patience and brains to give SC2 its time to grow , but i guess its too hard to expect it from nostalgia vision people to actually see the progress and know that as BW grew , so will SC2. and its very silly to expect sc2 meta game to be at bw level at this age ...
And i think the huge amount of spectators and fans is really the only proof you need that SC2 has great potential and produce some beautiful games.
It's like saying okay that xxxxx sport is good because every one's playing that game because there is a lot of people ? Point taken maybe that's your standard of what is a good sport is , However for me , I am going on the basis what's my standard and you many not like it and that doesn't mean that everyone has to follow what the majority does just because it's liked by many people . Twilight for example.
I think curling is a terrible sport and I don't enjoy it. Should I now go to broomliquid.net and tell them I think curling sucks, and if people like it it's because they have no taste, just like Twilight fans?
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.
I don't care for the comparisons with bw, but if sc2 were to evolved, less max army fights would be fun, though i don't know how that can happen because 1 failed anything results in a bit of turtling until a random fight and if there isn't an advantage for one side, then it will go into a turtleish game.
On November 23 2011 13:12 Nizzy wrote: Bigger maps, bigger maps, bigger maps, bigger maps.
I strongly believe this is what SC2 needs. The "Big" maps aren't very big at all.
But there is aproblem with bigger maps: Nydus and Warpgate completly destroy the distance and terrans are left behind with dropships and airplay to shorten the attackpaths.
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.
To be honest, that's because Metalopolis is so stupid for TvT. If one player is mech or even both of them, since there's only 2 places to push it's too hard to bother. better to just go Air.
On November 23 2011 18:06 haflo wrote: Whats up with BW fans , and their special need to come to SC2 forums and whine about something that is less good then BW.
If you going to get one thing from this post take this Giving an example does not prove the rule never ever ,that is very stupid thing to do.
given: passive TvT - rain vs boxer counter: Active TvT - MvP vs MMA
given: passive PVt - socke counter: sage / hero
i can do it with Z players as well... with ease
what does it tell me ? more about the style of the players then anything else for now...
why the hell do you link games for BW ? i find tennis quite boring personally , but i can link you from the last 10 years some very interesting games, does it say anything about tennis as a game as a spectator sport for me ?
I think this thread belong with the - "SC2 can never go more then one base" , "Sc2 has very low ceiling - everyone will cap it in half a year" , "SC2 have no micro , AI is too good" "In SC2 everyone will have perfect macro - its too easy!" "I need my units to be unable to go from A to B without babysit each and every one of them , and UI and control and graphics which belong to the stone age in order for a game to it to be any good ,fuck blizzard!" And i have one common though about those threads today - very stupid statements.
If you cannot enjoy SC2 i personally feel truly sorry for you , its a beautiful game and getting better repeatedly I wish BW will be there forever for you , but please less silly threads ...
really i would think that BW will have the most patience and brains to give SC2 its time to grow , but i guess its too hard to expect it from nostalgia vision people to actually see the progress and know that as BW grew , so will SC2. and its very silly to expect sc2 meta game to be at bw level at this age ...
And i think the huge amount of spectators and fans is really the only proof you need that SC2 has great potential and produce some beautiful games.
It's like saying okay that xxxxx sport is good because every one's playing that game because there is a lot of people ? Point taken maybe that's your standard of what is a good sport is , However for me , I am going on the basis what's my standard and you many not like it and that doesn't mean that everyone has to follow what the majority does just because it's liked by many people . Twilight for example.
I think curling is a terrible sport and I don't enjoy it. Should I now go to broomliquid.net and tell them I think curling sucks, and if people like it it's because they have no taste, just like Twilight fans?
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.
Nice try in putting the word "suck" in to my statement , but I am not going to respond any further.
On November 23 2011 18:06 haflo wrote: Whats up with BW fans , and their special need to come to SC2 forums and whine about something that is less good then BW.
If you going to get one thing from this post take this Giving an example does not prove the rule never ever ,that is very stupid thing to do.
given: passive TvT - rain vs boxer counter: Active TvT - MvP vs MMA
given: passive PVt - socke counter: sage / hero
i can do it with Z players as well... with ease
what does it tell me ? more about the style of the players then anything else for now...
why the hell do you link games for BW ? i find tennis quite boring personally , but i can link you from the last 10 years some very interesting games, does it say anything about tennis as a game as a spectator sport for me ?
I think this thread belong with the - "SC2 can never go more then one base" , "Sc2 has very low ceiling - everyone will cap it in half a year" , "SC2 have no micro , AI is too good" "In SC2 everyone will have perfect macro - its too easy!" "I need my units to be unable to go from A to B without babysit each and every one of them , and UI and control and graphics which belong to the stone age in order for a game to it to be any good ,fuck blizzard!" And i have one common though about those threads today - very stupid statements.
If you cannot enjoy SC2 i personally feel truly sorry for you , its a beautiful game and getting better repeatedly I wish BW will be there forever for you , but please less silly threads ...
really i would think that BW will have the most patience and brains to give SC2 its time to grow , but i guess its too hard to expect it from nostalgia vision people to actually see the progress and know that as BW grew , so will SC2. and its very silly to expect sc2 meta game to be at bw level at this age ...
And i think the huge amount of spectators and fans is really the only proof you need that SC2 has great potential and produce some beautiful games.
It's like saying okay that xxxxx sport is good because every one's playing that game because there is a lot of people ? Point taken maybe that's your standard of what is a good sport is , However for me , I am going on the basis what's my standard and you many not like it and that doesn't mean that everyone has to follow what the majority does just because it's liked by many people . Twilight for example.
I think curling is a terrible sport and I don't enjoy it. Should I now go to broomliquid.net and tell them I think curling sucks, and if people like it it's because they have no taste, just like Twilight fans?
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.
Nice try in putting the word "suck" in to my statement , but I am not going to respond any further.
I didn't put any words into your statement, I quoted your post and then satirized it. But feel free to change around any words that you feel are too strong.
Your statement would be fine if you were honestly attempting to say that "this is just my personal preference". But you used inflammatory language like "standard of what a good sport is", and then compared everyone who doesn't have the same standard as you to Twilight fans.
On November 23 2011 18:06 haflo wrote: Whats up with BW fans , and their special need to come to SC2 forums and whine about something that is less good then BW.
If you going to get one thing from this post take this Giving an example does not prove the rule never ever ,that is very stupid thing to do.
given: passive TvT - rain vs boxer counter: Active TvT - MvP vs MMA
given: passive PVt - socke counter: sage / hero
i can do it with Z players as well... with ease
what does it tell me ? more about the style of the players then anything else for now...
why the hell do you link games for BW ? i find tennis quite boring personally , but i can link you from the last 10 years some very interesting games, does it say anything about tennis as a game as a spectator sport for me ?
I think this thread belong with the - "SC2 can never go more then one base" , "Sc2 has very low ceiling - everyone will cap it in half a year" , "SC2 have no micro , AI is too good" "In SC2 everyone will have perfect macro - its too easy!" "I need my units to be unable to go from A to B without babysit each and every one of them , and UI and control and graphics which belong to the stone age in order for a game to it to be any good ,fuck blizzard!" And i have one common though about those threads today - very stupid statements.
If you cannot enjoy SC2 i personally feel truly sorry for you , its a beautiful game and getting better repeatedly I wish BW will be there forever for you , but please less silly threads ...
really i would think that BW will have the most patience and brains to give SC2 its time to grow , but i guess its too hard to expect it from nostalgia vision people to actually see the progress and know that as BW grew , so will SC2. and its very silly to expect sc2 meta game to be at bw level at this age ...
And i think the huge amount of spectators and fans is really the only proof you need that SC2 has great potential and produce some beautiful games.
It's like saying okay that xxxxx sport is good because every one's playing that game because there is a lot of people ? Point taken maybe that's your standard of what is a good sport is , However for me , I am going on the basis what's my standard and you many not like it and that doesn't mean that everyone has to follow what the majority does just because it's liked by many people . Twilight for example.
I think curling is a terrible sport and I don't enjoy it. Should I now go to broomliquid.net and tell them I think curling sucks, and if people like it it's because they have no taste, just like Twilight fans?
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.
Success has nothing to do with inferior/superior.
BW was a resounding success too. It averaged 9/10 in all game reviews, got game of the year in nearly all magazines (the expansion did as well) and sold 11 million copies. The best players are earning up to 400,000 USD a year.
What about SC2, less than 3 mill sold?, that's less than 1/3rd. For a sequel of a best selling game, that's actually kind of poor, usually the next release is more popular (see halo vs halo 2 vs halo 3). We don't know how long sc2 will be popular as an esport or as a game. Of course, we should give it time, but you are jumping the gun a bit. Pure stats alone, BW trumps it.
I will call SC2 a resounding success when I see new people still buying the game 10 years after the last expansion.
I was thinking this myself during MLG. Some games just felt very passive for large parts of some games. I'm not convinced it's a flaw in the game as much it's about the current skill level and strategies though.
EPT
