|
On May 12 2011 13:59 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 13:52 Zrana wrote:
You didn't mention NaDa or July as much as you should have. Both amazing at sc1 (capable of beating flash/JD at times iirc but not rocking SC2 as hard as you say they should)
It would help to read the article before trying to poke holes in his argument. Unfortunately I don't think any of the top tier BW players will switch over in the near future, as it would be a stupid decision financially. Until then, this topic will not have an answer. Having been around BW for a very, very long time, I think most of the regular proleague guys would immediately rise to the top. Flash in particular would be remarkable at SC2, in my opinion.
Thank you, finally someone saying "in my opinion". Its just foolish to say oh so and so will be the best cause they're the best at this one game. Last I checked for something to be factual it has to be proven which this has yet to be making it nothing more then someone's opinion. So as this article tries to state it as fact it can't be an it is unknown if Flash, JD, or Bisu would just utterly smash everyone they come into contact with it just isnt factual so to claim it as such is false. They might do as such but they may also just not be able to make the transition or for some fluke reason jsut not play that it can happen so saying oh they wont cause they're just amazing at BW is false cause anything can happen unlike like what has been said. An to call this years competition a "farce" is also false cause we've seen such amazing and epic games due to the fact that the competition has been so amazing. There's a reason esports is growing and SC2 is at the heart of it, that reason being because the competition is AMAZING, and anything but a farce.
|
On December 08 2011 04:21 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 04:12 Ravomat wrote:On December 08 2011 04:05 50bani wrote:
Sure his overall winrate is not high per his whole career but he was a lot better in the last year of BW. On the other hand, the second best SC2 player, Nestea was gawdawful at BW 1v1. He actually retired when they dropped 2v2s from proleague. How has this scrub become the benchmark of Zerg play? He was mainly a 2v2 player, he wasn't supposed to be good at 1v1. I think he got through the qualifiers to an MSL or something anyway as a 2v2 player just before he switched to SC2. So I wouldn't call him 'gawdawful'. Get your research right before calling someone a scrub. Idra talked about it on state of the game half a year ago. With all due respect, Idra was god-awful at BW as well, compared to the Koreans.
And that disqualifies him from making that statement how? He was close up to the BW seen moreso then anyother, i think he knows what he's talking about.
|
On December 08 2011 05:35 Replice wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 04:21 Shiori wrote:On December 08 2011 04:12 Ravomat wrote:On December 08 2011 04:05 50bani wrote:
Sure his overall winrate is not high per his whole career but he was a lot better in the last year of BW. On the other hand, the second best SC2 player, Nestea was gawdawful at BW 1v1. He actually retired when they dropped 2v2s from proleague. How has this scrub become the benchmark of Zerg play? He was mainly a 2v2 player, he wasn't supposed to be good at 1v1. I think he got through the qualifiers to an MSL or something anyway as a 2v2 player just before he switched to SC2. So I wouldn't call him 'gawdawful'. Get your research right before calling someone a scrub. Idra talked about it on state of the game half a year ago. With all due respect, Idra was god-awful at BW as well, compared to the Koreans. And that disqualifies him from making that statement how? He was close up to the BW seen moreso then anyother, i think he knows what he's talking about.
I think his point is that IdrA would not call Nestea awful because if he does, he would call himself just as (or even more) awful.
edit: thats at least how I interpreted his statement. I could be mistaken.
|
On December 08 2011 05:07 OrangeSoda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 04:47 L_Master wrote:On December 08 2011 04:05 50bani wrote:
I haven't read this thread at all so maybe someone else has posted the same argument.
MVP is(was) the best SC1 progamer to make the switch. Sure his overall winrate is not high per his whole career but he was a lot better in the last year of BW. On the other hand, the second best SC2 player, Nestea was gawdawful at BW 1v1. He actually retired when they dropped 2v2s from proleague. How has this scrub become the benchmark of Zerg play? What we should expect is a re-randomization of skill imo, because the game plays a bit differently and you may need a different mentality in order to play the game as compared to SC1. So we will be surprised who the best players are from the current BW scene.
Also to note is that in Europe we have a lot of WarCraft3 players dominating, not quite the old SC1 players. This I believe supports the re-randomization of skill I mentioned above.
Now, no post is good without a little bit of speculation, and trolling really, so I will talk about my expectations from the players switching over. Fantasy and Leta will do well with Terran. Flash will do not, probably should play Protoss, but he will most likely stay loyal to his Terran and be frustrated. Jaedong will hate Zerg, should also play Terran imo. None of the Protosses will make it big. With any race. This has nothing to do with any percieved imbalance of the races, but it takes a lot of brains to play this race and they are too far behind the metagame to get good enough fast enough, and imo there is only one truly brilliant(as in smart) Korean player and that is Flash. Okay, the game doesn't take that much intelligence to play, nor does BW. No doubt you have to be strategically smart but I personally feel your overemphasizing that too much. Secondly, in regards to Bisu, he is not known for being good at creating his own builds and strategies. However, Bisu is arguably the best (possible exception of Flash) at taking discovered builds and refining them to perfection. Bisu didn't invent the Forge FE, but he is the one who pioneered it and learned to make it effective and the one who has recently re-refined it with a heavier emphasis on corsair usage and air dominance. Moreover, BW requires the same level of creativity/thinking/intelligence as SC2. If you don't have those there is no way in heck you will make it as a pro. If you can make it in BW, there is no reason to think a player doesn't have the intelligence/brilliance to be successful in SC2 as well. Also, when you have players with the mechanics, multitasking, and control of someone like a Bisu, JD, or FlaSh they are going to be solid top tier players JUST because of that, even if they are only comparatively mediocre at understanding the game. And yes, Bisu's multitasking/micro/macro are THAT much better than any sc2 player currently playing. Heck, they are significantly better than most BW pros. He is even faster than this now. Why does every sc1/sc2 argument always have a youtube link of a sc1 god playing? are they the only ones that are able to produce good broodwar games? I never see links to the middle of the road sc1 pro players. Every argument is " look at what only 5 or so players in the entirety of sc1 can pull off, why cant you do that in sc2 hmm?"
The guy was saying that he didn't think even players like Bisu would succeed. In case he hasn't had exposure I wanted to give him an idea of just how good mechanically and multitasking Bisu is.
Here is an example of a more mid range BW player:
![[image loading]](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEuobvYtrgg&feature=channel_video_title)
Someone has mentioned before, it's a complete fallacy when some people tear "mechanics" and "strategic ability" apart from each other. MOST of the time, a player that trump you at "mechanics" also are that much better at reading the game, and making strategic decision.. And yes it takes a TON of brain to play these kind of games when u actually play seriously (SC2 ladder is not serious, btw), just look how much they sweat during long tense games.
This is actually a really interesting angle. However, I really do feel you can tear them apart; you just don't have to have great strategy and "star-sense" to go back to your gates/raxes/hatches and macro every 30 seconds. Knowing how you should respond, or not having a clue how to respond, shouldn't have significant impacts on ones mechanics.
It can go the other way too. You can know exactly what your opponents up to and how to counter it but not have the speed, multitasking, or ingrained instinct to keep up with macro or multitasking.
I think it's true at the top that strategy and mechanics are paired because at that level neither can separate you from the best. You MUST have both or their you just can't be a top player; I just don't see it being possible for a top player to be a top player through sheer domination of one aspect and the other being weaker.
At lower levels I see it all the time though. I'll play against people that while they make a lot of stuff, harass some, etc. don't have a clue what they are doing and utterly fail to adapt to my play and get crushed. Then I'll play against other people that are clearly making the right moves/decisions but don't have the macro to have sufficient units to end up winning; or they fail to be able to keep up with my multitasking and lose even though they are responding intelligently and correctly.
|
Zergbong, despite being bad by progaming standards, can still pretty much wipe the floor with foreigners in BW. Despite Nestea having a more successful SC2 career than a BW career I think I have better odds of beating Nestea in SC2 than in BW, since BW is a much harder game.
|
On December 08 2011 05:32 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 05:29 m3rciless wrote:
God BW. I wish we were all just playing BW still. I love sc2, but BW was sick sick sick good. It took the better part of a decade to get there though. Once we "figure out" SC2, it will probably be better than BW. I'm SO excited to see how Starcraft 2 evolves once Legacy of the Void has come and the game is "complete."
Hmm.. U know how many years it took for BW players to learn what "micro" is? "macro"? "build order"?
Now look back at SC2, and maybe you will realise that SC2 did not start from scratch like you are implying.. the better part of the decade's worth of knowledge were spoon-fed to the SC2 scene from the get-go.. Imagine playing Legacy of the Void for 3-4 years, THEN BoXeR someone discover micro, and slowly people start learning/imitating him.. Another 1-2 years, iloveOov comes macro, then build order... etc SC2 may be young, but it definitely has gone through the better part of the decade's worth of evolution/development already.
Never mind stuff like Forge FE, fast expand, etc..
On December 08 2011 05:39 L_Master wrote:
This is actually a really interesting angle. However, I really do feel you can tear them apart; you just don't have to have great strategy and "star-sense" to go back to your gates/raxes/hatches and macro every 30 seconds. Knowing how you should respond, or not having a clue how to respond, shouldn't have significant impacts on ones mechanics.
It can go the other way too. You can know exactly what your opponents up to and how to counter it but not have the speed, multitasking, or ingrained instinct to keep up with macro or multitasking.
Instead of your baseless "what if"s, why don't you try to find an example of such a player? Not fast enough to go back to your barracks/gates to build units every 30 seconds? Hahaha seriously? EVERY A-teamers has uber mechanics, and yes, all of them have better understanding of the game than those that are not A-teamers.
At lower levels I see it all the time though. I'll play against people that while they make a lot of stuff, harass some, etc. don't have a clue what they are doing and utterly fail to adapt to my play and get crushed. Then I'll play against other people that are clearly making the right moves/decisions but don't have the macro to have sufficient units to end up winning; or they fail to be able to keep up with my multitasking and lose even though they are responding intelligently and correctly.
I assume we are talking about pros, in which case this is pretty much irrelevant. If you are talking about scrubs (aka not a progamer), then i have no comments, since i don't think they are worth any discussion.
|
On December 08 2011 05:46 ffreakk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 05:32 Klondikebar wrote:On December 08 2011 05:29 m3rciless wrote:
God BW. I wish we were all just playing BW still. I love sc2, but BW was sick sick sick good. It took the better part of a decade to get there though. Once we "figure out" SC2, it will probably be better than BW. I'm SO excited to see how Starcraft 2 evolves once Legacy of the Void has come and the game is "complete." Hmm.. U know how many years it took for BW players to learn what "micro" is? "macro"? "build order"? Now look back at SC2, and maybe you will realise that SC2 did not start from scratch like you are implying.. the better part of the decade's worth of knowledge were spoon-fed to the SC2 scene from the get-go.. Imagine playing Legacy of the Void for 3-4 years, THEN BoXeR someone discover micro, and slowly people start learning/imitating him.. Another 1-2 years, iloveOov comes macro, then build order... etc SC2 may be young, but it definitely has gone through the better part of the decade's worth of evolution/development already. Never mind stuff like Forge FE, fast expand, etc.. Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 05:39 L_Master wrote:
This is actually a really interesting angle. However, I really do feel you can tear them apart; you just don't have to have great strategy and "star-sense" to go back to your gates/raxes/hatches and macro every 30 seconds. Knowing how you should respond, or not having a clue how to respond, shouldn't have significant impacts on ones mechanics.
It can go the other way too. You can know exactly what your opponents up to and how to counter it but not have the speed, multitasking, or ingrained instinct to keep up with macro or multitasking.
Instead of your baseless "what if"s, why don't you try to find an example of such a player? Not fast enough to go back to your barracks/gates to build units every 30 seconds? Hahaha seriously? EVERY A-teamers has uber mechanics, and yes, all of them have better understanding of the game than those that are not A-teamers.
Of course every A-teamer has great mechanics. The 30 seconds thing was making a point, which is why is there any reason to suspect a linkage between the two?
What does the ability to make units and cast great storms have to do with being able to pioneer strategies or make correct in game decision?
Some examples that come to mind would be Boxer, who innovated numerous micro tricks, and continued to come prepared with clever plays even late into his BW playing days despite being a generally weaker player mechanically. A second example would be someone like Daezang, if you have the ability to invent a totally new fast expand style of PvZ play you've got a pretty damn good understanding of the game. Something clearly held him back, probably mechanics.
I guess for me the issue here is I see no logical reason why mechanics would be tied to strategy. Obviously, better players are going to have both because neither one on their own can be good enough to be great without the other. The way I am understanding your argument though is that the two are intrinsically tied.
This would be something like speed vs endurance in running. The very best 1500m guys excel in both. 47,48 second 400m speed combined with incredible endurance. However, you can be a very solid runner at 1500m by being strong at one. Someone with 46 second 400m speed and respectable, thought not outstanding, endurance can still be a competitive on the world stage though would likely not be able to handle a super fast race right from the start. Someone who is slower, having perhaps 50 second 400m speed, can still run a great time as well but just won't have the necessary speed to kick against the faster guys and win the race. Their is nothing though to suggest that speed/endurance are paired qualities. Both contribute to great running and working on one doesn't necessarily affect the other and there is no reason to think that the one quality is in any way tied to the other.
Just like I don't see any reason or evidence that sprinting speed is tied to endurance I fail to see any evidence that mechanics is tied to strategy.
|
I just hope they fix Protoss so by the time Bisu switches over to SC2 (ok, ok fine, IF Bisu switches over) he won't change race.
Just give back Zealot leg speed and remove charge and I think Protoss will be complete.  Oh, and keep them Carriers. And maybe remove the Colossus and bring back the Reaver. Heck, revamp the whole game.
j/k. But yeah Zealot speed FTW.
|
If there really was a player that capable of dominating everyone 100% in SC2, then they're retarded not to do it. If you literally could not lose in SC2, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that you'd make shitloads of money if you went to and WON every single MLG stop, every GSL tournament, dreamhack, etc. etc. etc. all year long. BW has nothing on that. BW is SC2 with buttons popped out of the keyboard to make it artificially difficult.
|
On December 08 2011 12:15 LF9 wrote:
If there really was a player that capable of dominating everyone 100% in SC2, then they're retarded not to do it. If you literally could not lose in SC2, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that you'd make shitloads of money if you went to and WON every single MLG stop, every GSL tournament, dreamhack, etc. etc. etc. all year long. BW has nothing on that. BW is SC2 with buttons popped out of the keyboard to make it artificially difficult.
everyone who says this has never actually played brood war before. the difference between BW and SC2 is that in SC2 there are many more strategies that if you did X, then you automatically lose to Y if the player executing it is anywhere near your skill level...
brood war is in no way shape or form "artificially difficult". stop with this nonsense, maybe you should try playing it sometime. and i never heard of BW before SC2 so i'm not a BW fanboy.
|
On December 08 2011 12:15 LF9 wrote:
If there really was a player that capable of dominating everyone 100% in SC2, then they're retarded not to do it. If you literally could not lose in SC2, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that you'd make shitloads of money if you went to and WON every single MLG stop, every GSL tournament, dreamhack, etc. etc. etc. all year long. BW has nothing on that. BW is SC2 with buttons popped out of the keyboard to make it artificially difficult.
The problem is, its only 99% likely that if flash switched over he would win every tournament(given practice time of course) So would you really risk a 400k+ salary and bw tournament earnings and personal sponsorships and more fame(In korea ofc) to earn a little bit more in a year? I know I wouldn't. Flash and the top tier players make enough money in bw where its not worth the slightest risk/work to learn a new game and only earn marginally more as opposed to staying with BW and being guanrenteed tons of money and fame with a game you know 100% you can win.
|
On December 08 2011 12:15 LF9 wrote:
If there really was a player that capable of dominating everyone 100% in SC2, then they're retarded not to do it. If you literally could not lose in SC2, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that you'd make shitloads of money if you went to and WON every single MLG stop, every GSL tournament, dreamhack, etc. etc. etc. all year long. BW has nothing on that. BW is SC2 with buttons popped out of the keyboard to make it artificially difficult.
LOL. How ignorant. Even the best players in BW and SC2 cannot win all the tournaments. There's no player capable of winning 100% of the time because that's not how the game works. Even potentially winning 50% of the GSLs in a year does not give you the financial security of a guaranteed 300-350k.
I think I've seen you before in these kinds of threads and I must say you always show your ignorance with posts like this. BW players will be better than non-BW players in SC2, that's the simple advantage of playing a similar game for years at a high level. But it doesn't guarantee you championships, only the potential to win them.
|
On December 08 2011 04:47 L_Master wrote:
Okay, the game doesn't take that much intelligence to play, nor does BW.
There's a reason it's called the chess of our generation. If you can't admit the game takes intelligence, then I can only draw these conclusions:
a) You've never seen a pro match.
b) You've seen a pro match, but didn't understand what was going on.
or
c) You cry cheese every time you lose instead of admitting that you were outplayed.
|
On December 08 2011 12:27 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 12:15 LF9 wrote:
If there really was a player that capable of dominating everyone 100% in SC2, then they're retarded not to do it. If you literally could not lose in SC2, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that you'd make shitloads of money if you went to and WON every single MLG stop, every GSL tournament, dreamhack, etc. etc. etc. all year long. BW has nothing on that. BW is SC2 with buttons popped out of the keyboard to make it artificially difficult. The problem is, its only 99% likely that if flash switched over he would win every tournament(given practice time of course) So would you really risk a 400k+ salary and bw tournament earnings and personal sponsorships and more fame(In korea ofc) to earn a little bit more in a year? I know I wouldn't. Flash and the top tier players make enough money in bw where its not worth the slightest risk/work to learn a new game and only earn marginally more as opposed to staying with BW and being guanrenteed tons of money and fame with a game you know 100% you can win.
It's because Flash would never win every tourney.
Despite what people like to think, there are build order losses and cheeses in this game that rely purely on luck to see, unles you feel like pulling 3 workers to scout the entire map at once.
Even if he had a 95% win rate, someone could 2-1 cheese him out of a Bo3.
|
On December 08 2011 12:28 Caladbolg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 12:15 LF9 wrote:
If there really was a player that capable of dominating everyone 100% in SC2, then they're retarded not to do it. If you literally could not lose in SC2, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that you'd make shitloads of money if you went to and WON every single MLG stop, every GSL tournament, dreamhack, etc. etc. etc. all year long. BW has nothing on that. BW is SC2 with buttons popped out of the keyboard to make it artificially difficult. LOL. How ignorant. Even the best players in BW and SC2 cannot win all the tournaments. There's no player capable of winning 100% of the time because that's not how the game works. Even potentially winning 50% of the GSLs in a year does not give you the financial security of a guaranteed 300-350k. I think I've seen you before in these kinds of threads and I must say you always show your ignorance with posts like this. BW players will be better than non-BW players in SC2, that's the simple advantage of playing a similar game for years at a high level. But it doesn't guarantee you championships, only the potential to win them.
The experience of playing a similar game at an extremely high level will give them the potential to win, and their dedication and training practices (which blows current SC2 players out of the water) will be what wins them the championships.
|
On December 08 2011 12:28 Caladbolg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 12:15 LF9 wrote:
If there really was a player that capable of dominating everyone 100% in SC2, then they're retarded not to do it. If you literally could not lose in SC2, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that you'd make shitloads of money if you went to and WON every single MLG stop, every GSL tournament, dreamhack, etc. etc. etc. all year long. BW has nothing on that. BW is SC2 with buttons popped out of the keyboard to make it artificially difficult. LOL. How ignorant. Even the best players in BW and SC2 cannot win all the tournaments. There's no player capable of winning 100% of the time because that's not how the game works. Even potentially winning 50% of the GSLs in a year does not give you the financial security of a guaranteed 300-350k. I think I've seen you before in these kinds of threads and I must say you always show your ignorance with posts like this. BW players will be better than non-BW players in SC2, that's the simple advantage of playing a similar game for years at a high level. But it doesn't guarantee you championships, only the potential to win them.
Even then, a 50% win-chance regarding a whole tournament is considered incredibly high. Imagine a football team to have a 50% win chance for the world cup.
|
On December 08 2011 12:26 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 12:15 LF9 wrote:
If there really was a player that capable of dominating everyone 100% in SC2, then they're retarded not to do it. If you literally could not lose in SC2, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that you'd make shitloads of money if you went to and WON every single MLG stop, every GSL tournament, dreamhack, etc. etc. etc. all year long. BW has nothing on that. BW is SC2 with buttons popped out of the keyboard to make it artificially difficult. everyone who says this has never actually played brood war before. the difference between BW and SC2 is that in SC2 there are many more strategies that if you did X, then you automatically lose to Y if the player executing it is anywhere near your skill level...
Pretty much this.
I think in roughly 30% of SC2 games I watch, the better player loses due to build order, unit compositions, not scouting some hidden building on the map etc. The game allows far too many ways to get "strategic" wins.
You can be Bisu all you want, but your opponent can simply study what you do and just build units that kill your units at the right time, and in SC2 it's a lot more difficult to overcome these situations with skill.
So in the end you can't really be sure you're going to win against any opponent who has the bare minimum of mechanical proficiency.
|
On December 08 2011 12:33 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 12:26 Silidons wrote:On December 08 2011 12:15 LF9 wrote:
If there really was a player that capable of dominating everyone 100% in SC2, then they're retarded not to do it. If you literally could not lose in SC2, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that you'd make shitloads of money if you went to and WON every single MLG stop, every GSL tournament, dreamhack, etc. etc. etc. all year long. BW has nothing on that. BW is SC2 with buttons popped out of the keyboard to make it artificially difficult. everyone who says this has never actually played brood war before. the difference between BW and SC2 is that in SC2 there are many more strategies that if you did X, then you automatically lose to Y if the player executing it is anywhere near your skill level... Pretty much this. I think in roughly 30% of SC2 games I watch, the better player loses due to build order, unit compositions, not scouting some hidden building on the map etc. The game allows far too many ways to get "strategic" wins. You can be Bisu all you want, but your opponent can simply study what you do and just build units that kill your units at the right time, and in SC2 it's a lot more difficult to overcome these situations with skill. So in the end you can't really be sure you're going to win against any opponent who has the bare minimum of mechanical proficiency.
My inclination is to think that the large number of "strategic" wins isn't due to anything inherent in the game, but rather to the game's age (or lack thereof). One of the most infamous moments in BW history was Boxer's 3-0 triple bunker rush against YellOw; if that happened today – for instance Flash against Jaedong, or even Leta vs ZerO – it would never work.
Why? Partly because it's been done before. If a guy cheeses in set one – especially if he wins – the opponent scouts for cheese in set two.
But the main reason are that build orders, building placement, etc. has gotten that much better. Following oov's lead, the idea of getting just enough to survive while building a longterm advantage has been built on to the point where, if the skill difference is at all significant, it's possible to (for instance) 14CC and hold off a cheese. Or for another example, consider the famous game of sKyHigh (best matchup, TvT) vs Jaedong in the first WL final. A completely ordinary build was sufficient to repel a 6 pool.
SC2 isn't old enough yet to have acquired that "perfection" (and it's not perfect, yet: even in the last year or so we've seen Zergs improving their simcities, Terrans using different early timings, Protoss varying their playstyle) for a lot of reasons: no "final" patch (and in fact 2 expansions still coming), no unified scene, few independent (or stylistically unified) maps – you can probably find other reasons if you look.
I think the reason people assume BW pros will do well (and so far A-teamers have done well) in SC2 is that we think SC2 is the same kind of game; BW pros not only have the practice time habits, but also have (we think) an edge in understanding what's critical to RTS success. Obviously there are differences; also (which gets overlooked) SC2 is now attracting some players with those skills who would have played BW, so the edge won't last forever. But I think it's a reasonable assumption to make for now.
|
I love this game we play SC2, but it's seriously a joke compared to BW. Only reason I play SC2 is because it's loads easier than BW, it's definitely coin-flippy as shit though. Anybody that says otherwise is just a kid that hopped on the SC2 bandwagon, and doesn't want to admit that the game that came before it was harder, which admitting so would diminish his achievements thus far. Seriously the ONLY people that claim SC2 "takes just as much skill as BW, BW just had artificially had artificial difficulties," is seriously are lowbie SC2 players, that can't take the truth. And the top players from BW would rape the players from SC2 if they moved over, but they'd still lose a lot because SC2 doesn't have that high of a skill ceiling compared to BW.
|
Question:
Are there any well-known super-cheesy coin-flip style players in sc2, that isn't quite as good as his peers, but wins nonetheless because he relies on dangerous unscoutable / hard-to-scout all-ins to force their opponent to make the coinflip? I mean, sacrificial overlords, ramp pokes and sneaky probe scouts don't exactly always work or scout enough information; if your opponent doesn't fuck up you should obtain very little information with these "luck scouts". Thus, zerg/protoss can be considered to be incapable of scouting during those phases in the game.
Basically I'm just wondering how much larger the luck/guessing factor is in SC2 than in BW. Imagine a Terran player, that opens reactored hellions every game denying any scouting, then immediately starts the coin-flipping process by either making 2 port banshees, going for double expansions, going for additional factories for a hellion all-in, or going for some sort of marine/scv all-in aimed at killing the zerg opponent when he make the wrong response (or in the case of double expanding, gain an insurmountable advantage to make an unstoppable push minutes later). This is just an example as the player doesn't have to be Terran, just someone who has studied the game extensively, fully aware of the times of all races where they are not able to scout, then plays in a style and with builds that maximize the luck factor.
If this was ever to happen, SC2 would obviously be dead or heavily patched into almost a new game. There would be tons of amateurs good enough to execute all-ins nearly flawlessly, flooding the leagues regularly knocking out top players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
