| Forum Index > Closed |
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
Besides, there's probably also a lot of media coverage of the game in Korea, mentioning the new features... we all know it, so why should the land of Starcraft not know it? If they really didn't know about these things they must have literally been living under a rock. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On March 16 2008 03:42 maybenexttime wrote: They didn't mention it because they're really used to SC 1 UI so they didn't even use it, they don't really follow SC 2 developement (including MBS) most probably. this argument is flawed in many way | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
| ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
1. instant gratification 2. easy 3. good looking 4. pretending what you're doing is hard | ||
|
yangstuh
United States120 Posts
On March 16 2008 04:17 HamerD wrote: yeah unfortunately i think SC2 is going to embody everything that sucks about the west: 1. instant gratification 2. easy 3. good looking 4. pretending what you're doing is hard Haha, I think that you're wrong (not entirely though :p).. while WC3 wasn't everyone's cup of tea, it does have a successful professional esports following.. among a million other "western games," including your beloved Starcraft1 lol. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
Someone buys you a chocolate icecream. You would have rathered a vanilla icecream, but you dont complain about that. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
Every korean i've talked to who played SC2 thought the interface was bad. Every good foreigner (me included) who's played SC2 thought it was bad too. That should say enough. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 16 2008 11:18 Fen wrote: A bunch of progamers have been given the special opportunity to play an upcoming blizzard game before everyone else in the world. They are not going to turn around and start baggin it out. That would just be spitting in blizzards face. yes this is true. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
But not everyone needs to agree with that, mbs still has lots to show, and we cant realy say it hurts the game until we can see it being played in its most top level (witch no one did, because it isnt finished and no progamers had time to master the game) | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
On March 16 2008 07:37 yangstuh wrote: Haha, I think that you're wrong (not entirely though :p).. while WC3 wasn't everyone's cup of tea, it does have a successful professional esports following.. among a million other "western games," including your beloved Starcraft1 lol. WC3's following is an insignificant dot compared to the following StarCraft has accomplished in Korea. And as Tasteless mentioned above, the foreign e-sports scene is filled with fools who ignorantly pick games with nice graphics and good ratings, rather than a game that would actually logically make a good e-sport. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
On March 16 2008 14:43 MyLostTemple wrote: Every korean i've talked to who played SC2 thought the interface was bad. Every good foreigner (me included) who's played SC2 thought it was bad too. That should say enough. That really sums it all up. | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
On March 16 2008 14:43 MyLostTemple wrote: i can not believe people actually think that MBS will make the game an esport outside of korea. to put it bluntly anyone who honestly tries to use that argument is a retard. [...] Every korean i've talked to who played SC2 thought the interface was bad. Every good foreigner (me included) who's played SC2 thought it was bad too. That should say enough. Sorry, your opinions alone are not good enough. Greater people have been dead wrong before. I'll quote a post from another forum: + Show Spoiler + Skeptical Science and Technology Quotes "..so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value." - committee advising Ferdinand and Isabella regarding Columbus' proposal, 1486 "I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that stones fell from the sky" - Thomas Jefferson, 1807 on hearing an eyewitness report of falling meteorites. "Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." - Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859. "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." - Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872 "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon." - Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873. "Such startling announcements as these should be depreciated as being unworthy of science and mischievious to to its true progress" - Sir William Siemens, 1880, on Edison's announcement of a successful light bulb. "We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy." - Simon Newcomb, astronomer, 1888 "Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." - Thomas Edison, 1889 "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote…. Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." - physicist Albert. A. Michelson, 1894 "It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere." - Thomas Edison, 1895 "The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in a practicable machine by which men shall fly for long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be." - astronomer S. Newcomb, 1906 "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1911 "Caterpillar landships are idiotic and useless. Those officers and men are wasting their time and are not pulling their proper weight in the war" - Fourth Lord of the British Admiralty, 1915, in regards to use of tanks in war. "Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." - 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard’s revolutionary rocket work. "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" - David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s. "All a trick." "A Mere Mountebank." "Absolute swindler." "Doesn't know what he’s about." "What's the good of it?" "What useful purpose will it serve?" - Members of Britain's Royal Society, 1926, after a demonstration of television. "This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd lengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists." -A.W. Bickerton, physicist, NZ, 1926 "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." - Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929. "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." — Albert Einstein, 1932 "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine" - Ernst Rutherford, 1933 "The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]…presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished.” Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer, reviewing P.E. Cleator's "Rockets in Space", Nature, March 14, 1936 "Space travel is utter bilge!" -Sir Richard Van Der Riet Wolley, astronomer "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." - The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957 "Space travel is bunk" -Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik "There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States." -T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, 1961 "But what… is it good for?" - Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip. "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977 How can you be so condescending when it's clear no one can know how this will play out? Tone it down and learn some humility, it might just spare you future embarrassment. | ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
"It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the current model of aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must continue to develop." - Thomas Edison, 1895 And in that case, he would be correct. The airplane would still need another 8 years of work before it produced a successful heavier-than-air flight. That said, I personally haven't given up hope on the current SC2 interface, though I haven't played it. It is still yet to be subject to real high level play, and its not likely to be until long into beta. Yes, progamers as well as other skilled players have gotten their hands on it, but that doesn't mean they were playing it the same way they would be playing it in a real tournament match. They couldn't even if they wanted anyways, they don't know the game well enough. Even in the realm of theory, I'm still on the fence for MBS as there are just too many variables to accurately assess its viability one way or the other in my opinion. I've yet to see an argument (even one of my own  ) fully convince me in either direction. | ||
|
eugen1225
Yugoslavia134 Posts
When i started playing i noticed that micro is very easy in SC compared to war3. But the lack of some UI integrations (that most newer RTS have) made it difficult for me to manage my economy and production in the start. After a while, i discovered how to do these things. if you have production buildings scattered all over, its hard to produce anything, but if you put them close, the lack of MBS isn't really that big of a deal. Its just a different set of actions (not different skill) required to learn, to get them in your routine. After 2 months and a couple of weeks i can say that i macro very well, its not hard at all, micro is very simple, so i have covered the fundamentals of SC. However, the reason i lose a LOT, is not my lack of macro or micro, or APM (i had 250+ in war3 i have 200+ in SC). Its my lack and thorough understanding of many strategies i have to play against, my lacking of timing, and proper counter strats. In my opinion, Macro is overrated, its not that hard to learn and difficult to pull off as many of you state, and today, macro is not what decides games between 2 even fairly competent players, we can all macro, hence i don't have any objections to MBS. The victory comes from strats and tactics and timing, from game sense. What bothers me in SC and makes my games difficult is not lack of MBS but just 12 unit selection, and I'm happy that this number is raised in SC2. Also I'm sick of this praise Koreans attitude I see all over these forums. Yes they are the best in SC. They make a living out of it, they HAVE to be. Was it always so? No. Lest take a look at the early WCGs, BoXeR was almost eliminated by DIDI8(Bulgarian) once, and he played Elky(French) in the finals. In war3, the popularity of the game spawned many European pro teams, distinct styles (Euro and korean) very different for some time. Euro strats were more creative, while korean strats were more based on micro (ill just get this and this and Micro war with my opponent). Top war3 players are both Koreans and Europeans. Ignorant cocky statements of the SC community: 1)You guys think that the SC pros will be on top once SC2 comes out. What makes you so sure. 2)You think Koreans will just "liek wtf pwn" everyone when SC2 comes out. Why do you think like this? 3)You think SC players will "liek wtf pwn" every war3 player. What makes you so sure? | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
On March 16 2008 20:01 eugen1225 wrote: You guys overrate Macro. I took up SC 2 months ago, Ive watched the pro scene for years longer though. When i started playing i noticed that micro is very easy in SC compared to war3. But the lack of some UI integrations (that most newer RTS have) made it difficult for me to manage my economy and production in the start. After a while, i discovered how to do these things. if you have production buildings scattered all over, its hard to produce anything, but if you put them close, the lack of MBS isn't really that big of a deal. Its just a different set of actions (not different skill) required to learn, to get them in your routine. After 2 months and a couple of weeks i can say that i macro very well, its not hard at all, micro is very simple, so i have covered the fundamentals of SC. However, the reason i lose a LOT, is not my lack of macro or micro, or APM (i had 250+ in war3 i have 200+ in SC). Its my lack and thorough understanding of many strategies i have to play against, my lacking of timing, and proper counter strats. In my opinion, Macro is overrated, its not that hard to learn and difficult to pull off as many of you state, and today, macro is not what decides games between 2 even fairly competent players, we can all macro, hence i don't have any objections to MBS. The victory comes from strats and tactics and timing, from game sense. What bothers me in SC and makes my games difficult is not lack of MBS but just 12 unit selection, and I'm happy that this number is raised in SC2. Also I'm sick of this praise Koreans attitude I see all over these forums. Yes they are the best in SC. They make a living out of it, they HAVE to be. Was it always so? No. Lest take a look at the early WCGs, BoXeR was almost eliminated by DIDI8(Bulgarian) once, and he played Elky(French) in the finals. In war3, the popularity of the game spawned many European pro teams, distinct styles (Euro and korean) very different for some time. Euro strats were more creative, while korean strats were more based on micro (ill just get this and this and Micro war with my opponent). Top war3 players are both Koreans and Europeans. Ignorant cocky statements of the SC community: 1)You guys think that the SC pros will be on top once SC2 comes out. What makes you so sure. 2)You think Koreans will just "liek wtf pwn" everyone when SC2 comes out. Why do you think like this? 3)You think SC players will "liek wtf pwn" every war3 player. What makes you so sure? You are correct in the fact that in SC, especially in the upper echelons of skill, macro is not that important when it comes down to the wire. However, the problem is lowering that skill level to the point where a noob can macro just as efficiently as what you call a "fairly competent player." If SC2 is to be a competitive e-sport, you should not lower the bar, you should keep it high. In physical sports, there's a word for things that lower the bar so that untalented people can compete with the better players. I think they're called "steroids." As for the SC community being cocky and ignorant, I believe your post was pretty much the most ignorant or cocky thing I've ever read on TL.net. It is, of course, impossible to argue who will be better at a game that has not been released yet, but the fact stands that in the greatest RTS ever made, Koreans have held the position at the top for quite a while. Yes, there was a time when Korea's domination wasn't so definite, but that was also a time when SC build orders weren't set in stone and everyone was still figuring out new ways to play. The fact is that in the decade since SC has been released, SC has become even more competitive (and arguably harder to succeed in). In a recent interview with TheMarine and YellOw, they both talk about how they thought the skill ceiling had been reached years ago, and yet they continue to be proven wrong with new players like Jaedong and Flash. No foreigner since the days when SC was still being discovered has come remotely close to challenging these top Korean players now, when build orders have pretty much been worked to a science and unit counters are well-known. As for SC players "wtf pwn"-ing WC3 players, quite a few of the top WC3 players agree that SC is a harder game. I think Tasteless mentioned this once. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5568 Posts
| ||
|
Meh
Sweden458 Posts
| ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
On March 16 2008 20:01 eugen1225 wrote: 1)You guys think that the SC pros will be on top once SC2 comes out. What makes you so sure. 2)You think Koreans will just "liek wtf pwn" everyone when SC2 comes out. Why do you think like this? 3)You think SC players will "liek wtf pwn" every war3 player. What makes you so sure? The people who will be at the top in SC2 require a couple things:
So going back to those cocky statements... 1.) I don't think this is completely true, but there is some thought behind it. It just so happens that the Korean SC progamers are very well developed in each of these areas. It will give them a better chance. 2.) I don't really think this either. But just as with 1.), Koreans who are very in to starcraft are going to likely be ready for the above criteria.. 3.) Refer to the third criteria I listed. WC3 and other RTS players will likely have an understanding of RTS's and some will have good APM. But SC2 will certainly favor SC play styles over other games. Players used to gaining an advantage with their hero wont be given that opportunity in SC2. As for your macro claims: Who cares if its not as hard as its made out to be. Thats completely irrelevant to the issue of MBS. No matter how hard(easy) it is, MBS will require less attention on unit production than SBS, meaning less attention on macro. Less attention on macro means more attention on micro. Personally, I don't know if this would be bad for the game as an e-sport (its simply too theoretical and too much is subject to change to draw conclusions), but many will argue it is. In addition to that, some people just liked the macro aspect of SC more than the micro aspect, and were hoping that will be recreated in SC2. Maybe they sucked at micro or were flawless at macro, or maybe they just flat out preferred the large number battles over fancy footwork (even if they could do either). Even more likely though, is that they simply liked the BALANCE between the two in SC1. These people will obviously be more supportive of a system that splits the attention between micro and macro about the same as SC1 did. | ||
|
eugen1225
Yugoslavia134 Posts
Seeing how you comment on them, just proves me right.  The only thing you will bring to SC2 from SC1 will be your fundamentals (APM, micro/macro). Learning SC1 fundamentals is very easy. Stating that macro is a hard part to learn in fundamentals, and from that deducting that putting MBS in the game will make this very easy, is flawed as an argument. I love SC. Its the best RTS out there atm, but i have high hopes for SC2, and I'm sure it will surpass it. MBS will not ruin the game, it will not make it 30 times easier like a lot of you think. The pure clicking required to pull Macro off effectively is not that high. I can take any war3 player with an apm higher than 150 and i will teach him to Macro effectively in a week. The raw process is not nearly as complicated as some of you state, hence it cannot hold as an argument of simplifying this as a bad move and a game ruining one. No MBS = normal difficulty; with MBS = easy difficulty. It is not how you would like it to seem: no MBS = nightmare mode; MSB = uber easy mode. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Sziky
Online Event
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
