EPTSc2 strat > mechanics. attempts at proving it - Page 5
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Sianos
580 Posts
| ||
|
X3GoldDot
Malaysia3840 Posts
| ||
|
Zorgaz
Sweden2951 Posts
But i still don't get the point. Oh well guess you can do whatever makes you happy  | ||
|
Vod.kaholic
United States1052 Posts
If you only want to get to the middle of masters, learning macro only up to the level of executing an all-in every matchup will work, but it won't make you a better player. This should be obvious to anyone, as should the fact that if you want to improve your mechanics, that is going to take a lot of time and effort, but ultimately be more rewarding. I've re-read your post, and all I can gather is that you're trying to prove that you can blaze through lower leagues by executing a strat or an all-in because people are bad, which is just stupidly obvious to anyone who has played sc2. It's true, you don't NEED to have the crispest mechanics to get through lower leagues, so I don't see what's so special about what you're doing. | ||
|
LordAwesome
Sweden30 Posts
On January 07 2012 19:26 ohokurwrong wrote: um no... i dont think i have fought any masters in the top 8 that float mins. so.... I just google'd GSL, and on 140 supply both Losira and Nestea is floating over 1200 minerals in the GSL final, losira even floating 400 gas and 1400 minerals at 140 supply at one point. This is during battle/harass ofc, very few can keep their money low then. you proved my point lol. that the strats in sc2 are so easy that you dont need much skill just knowledge. you proved MY point with taht statement lordawesome... i hope you know that... Dude, just wow, So strategy is easy, knowledge is hard (so according to you, you get "sc2 knowledge" from having played wc3/bw?, and how do you define skill, is that micro/apm or strategy? or this "knowledge" that according to you is different from "strategy"? So basically strategy is so easy that anyone can do it, yet the difference between koreans and non-koreans is that koreans have better strategy? how does that make sense, and yes you said in topic that strategy is more important than apm, as such strategy should be what defines a top level korean from others, yet it is so easy that anyone can do it with no experience in sc2? ..? i dare YOU to show me a single Wc3 player that switched over to BW and was able to play in korea. I did not make this statement? Where did I alude to this? Why should I prove a false statement that YOU came up with? show me a sc2 player here thats never played broodwar and teach them every strat then have them fight even a C iccup player and watch him get mirked. everyone knows sc2 is easy when compared to the physical ability needed in BW. thats why strat > everything else in sc2 Do you seriously think that Moon/check/polt (wc3/sc2 players) would have ANY problem roflstomping a random C player? Honestly? And how would I be able to prove this to you? Please make an argument that isn't based on a scenario that never occured, and never will. Am i supposed to go and ask Naniwa to practice some Brood War so he can then play some C player, is that what i actually need to do to disprove your point here? i mean really explain to me how someone who is not a pro but is in GM is on the same level as a pro I did not say that a all GM players are just as good as Idra or some other top level GM/ or PRO, but I did explain what the difference is: "Just look at a marine battle early game between say MVP vs KEEN or a non-korean. MVP will 90% of the time move his marines in position 0.5 sec faster every time." That is the difference between a low GM and high GM. So why do you ask me to explain something again that I clearly explained right there already. . its because the gap that they mechanically have isnt as bad since the strats are so easy to pull off And sc2 doesn't require any skill? You seem to confuse build-order losses with strategy, thats like saying there is no skill in Poker beacause there is an element of luck. There is an element of luck in sc2 as well, but that doesn't mean there is a lower amount of skill involved, just that the skill gap has to be bigger for the better player to have a 90% win rate. Wc3 had a much lower luck factor than BW, this does not make wc3 more difficult than either BW or sc2. Win rates are rather low in brood war as well. (Flash losing practice game vs oldboy woot???) And don't just randomly point out that BW requires more skill than sc2, we all know this is true, and this is not being argued anywhere anyway. So basically, try to be more coherent and logical in your arguementation without straw-mans if you are interested in having a serious debate on a subject, wich I presume is the intention here? | ||
|
Sianos
580 Posts
| ||
|
Atrimex
193 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
| ||
