The Elephant in the Room - Page 172

On November 29 2011 21:16 SafeAsCheese wrote:


He picked Fin. Should we call NesTea Zergbong?

On November 29 2011 23:48 StarStruck wrote:


If I want to call you whatever the heck I want. I will. He can call himself whatever the heck he wants, but that won't change my opinion of him. To me, he will forever be remembered as ForGG. Thus I will continue to call him that.

Moon versus ForGG would be fun. It would be entertaining. o;

On November 29 2011 23:48 StarStruck wrote:


If I want to call you whatever the heck I want. I will. He can call himself whatever the heck he wants, but that won't change my opinion of him. To me, he will forever be remembered as ForGG. Thus I will continue to call him that.

Moon versus ForGG would be fun. It would be entertaining. o;

The point is it feels like shit just got real. That's exciting. And that's what the actual main article of this thread failed to capture. It was so highly negative and unconstructive, then promised hope but didn't deliver.

Well ForGG is now bringing his own brand of excitement.

On November 29 2011 23:47 Neurosis wrote:

So uh, you don't actually understand why ForGG's play vs Polt was so insane do you? That had nothing to do with Polt playing bad or using the wrong units, that was just a complete and utter different level of play from ForGG. Watching those games I felt like that was exactly how Terran was meant to be played in sc2. That was a display of relentless multitasking and crisp micro that no one else has shown yet. I guess what I'm saying is he will easily smash through code s if his other match ups are as strong as his t v t.

On November 30 2011 00:21 pigscanfly wrote:


This. Players like MVP or MMA or Huk have occasionally shown control + macro as solid as his but his play has gotten me very very excited. He should be in Code S soon.

On November 30 2011 00:12 Little-Chimp wrote:
This whole situation reminds me of the Dragon Ball Z android saga, with Brood War players being androids from the future that SC2 players will eventually have to try to stop.

On November 30 2011 00:46 Eishi_Ki wrote:


I dont know if your analogy stands up too well. In context, this means everyone is an Android. Just that BW Androids are better than the current versions (akin to 16, 17 and 18 being better than 19 and 20).

Also, the Z Fighters won against the Androids (in a manner of speaking, the Z Fighters survived at any rate). Inconsistent.

Expect Cell soon. Who that is, I guess you can make your own mind up.

On November 30 2011 00:46 Eishi_Ki wrote:


I dont know if your analogy stands up too well. In context, this means everyone is an Android. Just that BW Androids are better than the current versions (akin to 16, 17 and 18 being better than 19 and 20).

Also, the Z Fighters won against the Androids (in a manner of speaking, the Z Fighters survived at any rate). Inconsistent.

Expect Cell soon. Who that is, I guess you can make your own mind up.

On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.

My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.

The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2.

On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.

My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.

The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2.