On December 23 2011 04:47 VPCursed wrote: I Dont know where people get off saying SC2 is more simple.. Mechanic wise i would agree... but strategy? no. SC2 I believe is much more complicated.. there is many more factors that go into the game that is simply not in BW... units have more mobility, units have more hard counters.... there is a'lot less simplicity in the units,ect. I think we will be always be seeing interesting play in SC2. There is just too much shit to try
You will start to see whole picture when you realize that when we mean strategy in RTS games means also tactic(and execution) , which frankly is marginal in sc2 compared to bw. Unit positioning, flanks, smart plays, army movements are much much more game influencing(as in game flow influencing) in bw than in sc2, in fact they are part of your strategy while in sc2 they are just minimal optimalizations given the simpler execution (AI) means less human effort and less difference because of that (because both players will always have "proper" units behavior as default).
The problem with strategy in both broodwar and in starcraft that it always relies in some parts in random variables, you cant predict/scout. And as you said units have more hand counters / are more deadly to each in sc2. Which gives those "random variables" much more power. Is it more interesting? Do we want to see players outplaying each other or simply outcheesing/meta-gaming each other? I would totally want to give a game to player who would be given a chance to set a positional trap to catch protoss army instead of him knowing he lost because he didnt make 5 more drones in 6 minute mark and make spire 20 second faster so he could have 5 more corruptors to kill 2 collosus at 12 minute mark.(random numbers) I dont think its interesting. At least make it that tactics are important not marginal because that was a part of BW, and i so hope this will be available in hots...
btw, the irony in that is not what you think it is. The irony is because thats exactly how a lot of BW fanboys talk about the best BW players....
The difference, of course, is that they have information on how those players fared in BW. What information does anyone have about how the best BW players will perform at SC2? The limited info we do have certainly implies good things for them.
what i find faulty in this argument (seen tons of times) is that every major BW pro didnt' start being gods, they started as simple men. Considering the players that switched age and their bw career only few of them would actually fall under the category that describes, such as Boxer. If some of these players had stayed in BW, whats not to say they wouldn't improve and become very good BW players? Nothing. Thats where the logic in this argument is very faulty.
Age played a factor in a Bw pro career , papabear aka foru or even garimto will not be expected to make a come back in broodwar because they are too old and the new generation players like TBLS will easily roll them . Boxer before switching to sc2 was a playing coach for skt1 and wasn't even fielded , nada on the other hand was still active in proleague games , Sadly it's reality that we grow old and our speed do decrease when we do age and not being able to play as fast as the young kids do will definitely affect your performance .
Although I see that the speed limitation is actually been minimized because of sc2 friendly system provided by the game .
Age decreasing our hand speed in the 30's like a lot of BW players seem to think is the dumbest most made up idea I've heard in my entire life. Look at the real world to finnd why this is a silly notion. The best musicians are in their 40's and 50's. Do you think the things that Steve Vai or Yngwie Malmsteen or Joe Satriani do take any less had coordinnation than playing SC2 or BW? They take over 10x as much as what it takes flash to play the way he does, and they're in their 40's and I'm pretty sure Joe Satriani is in his 50's by now. Look at the top piano players same story. You can maybe try and argue that the mental speed decreases with age, but that's a different argument than from what I hear everyone make about "oh your hands are slow when you're over 25." Please just put this silly notion of age playing a difference in playing speed to rest, unless you're trying to tell me that boxer is in his 60's now, the idea of him being too old to play is just silly.
Actually guitar players are extremely prone to hand issues (more so in the right hand believe it or not) which can develop from as early as on as their teens to as late as their 60s or 70s. your index (assuming its where you rest your pick, this doesnt really seem to happen to players who hold their pick with the tips of their fingers) finger looses feeling on your right hand if you play with a pick for a long time. I have met a man who could not move his right index finger (he was in his 60s). Things like arthritis and carpeltunnel can arise or be facilitated by guitar playing. Look at paul gilbert, a guitarist easily on par with any of the players you mentioned IMO better(personal taste), is plagued by horrid arthritis. playing sc does have a negative impact on your hands and its entirely relevant to the player just like other dexterous past times.
the statement the best musicians are in their 40s and 50s is wrong. everyone knows that some guy in their basement is the best guitarplayer in the world. They could be dead, 15, or 85.
edit, oh yea and kirk hammet has horrible arthritis.
btw, the irony in that is not what you think it is. The irony is because thats exactly how a lot of BW fanboys talk about the best BW players....
The difference, of course, is that they have information on how those players fared in BW. What information does anyone have about how the best BW players will perform at SC2? The limited info we do have certainly implies good things for them.
what i find faulty in this argument (seen tons of times) is that every major BW pro didnt' start being gods, they started as simple men. Considering the players that switched age and their bw career only few of them would actually fall under the category that describes, such as Boxer. If some of these players had stayed in BW, whats not to say they wouldn't improve and become very good BW players? Nothing. Thats where the logic in this argument is very faulty.
Age played a factor in a Bw pro career , papabear aka foru or even garimto will not be expected to make a come back in broodwar because they are too old and the new generation players like TBLS will easily roll them . Boxer before switching to sc2 was a playing coach for skt1 and wasn't even fielded , nada on the other hand was still active in proleague games , Sadly it's reality that we grow old and our speed do decrease when we do age and not being able to play as fast as the young kids do will definitely affect your performance .
Although I see that the speed limitation is actually been minimized because of sc2 friendly system provided by the game .
Age decreasing our hand speed in the 30's like a lot of BW players seem to think is the dumbest most made up idea I've heard in my entire life. Look at the real world to finnd why this is a silly notion. The best musicians are in their 40's and 50's. Do you think the things that Steve Vai or Yngwie Malmsteen or Joe Satriani do take any less had coordinnation than playing SC2 or BW? They take over 10x as much as what it takes flash to play the way he does, and they're in their 40's and I'm pretty sure Joe Satriani is in his 50's by now. Look at the top piano players same story. You can maybe try and argue that the mental speed decreases with age, but that's a different argument than from what I hear everyone make about "oh your hands are slow when you're over 25." Please just put this silly notion of age playing a difference in playing speed to rest, unless you're trying to tell me that boxer is in his 60's now, the idea of him being too old to play is just silly.
Do You just think it is so because you want it to be like that, or do you have any research to back it up except comparing Starcraft to that Steve Vai still can play guitar? If you look up research reports in this field you will actually see that the brain start to deteriorate in the early twenties, and by the 30 mark you are nowhere near your capacity at 17-20. However, I also wish it wouldn't be true.
Its a mental thing for most of the older players. Very similar to Golf or Snooker players. Sports like these dont depend on the players being physically fit at all. You would think then the older you get the wiser, more experienced, and knowledgable you become, so the better you get at the sport. Yet older players still call it a day or cant compete at the same level. Not because they know less but simply it isnt the same for them anymore
The dexterity argument is definitely stupid, it is almost certainly a mentality thing as to why pro players drop off. They realise there isn't enough money to give them the kind of comfortable retirement/old age they'd like when they start hitting late 20's, so start dedicating more time to things that will be able to provide a more tangible and solid income. Because they are dedicating more time to things outside of playing the game, they get worse. I really don't think it has anything to do with hand speed - instrumentalists of all kinds seem to prove that you can maintain a huge amount of hand dexterity right through to 50's or older. As for tactics and strategy etc, there have been multiple examples of chess grandmasters aged 50+ and still competing at the highest level. So put the two together, and you should be able to tell that age should really not start impeding your SC career until you hit 50+ aside from if you incur RSI or carpal tunnel related injuries, which are avoidable and do not happen to everyone. The main reason, unfortunately, that SC is a young man's game is money (lack of it) and lifestyle (12+ hours a day playing a game becomes too much to handle).
On December 23 2011 05:41 Treziel wrote: The dexterity argument is definitely stupid, it is almost certainly a mentality thing as to why pro players drop off. They realise there isn't enough money to give them the kind of comfortable retirement/old age they'd like when they start hitting late 20's, so start dedicating more time to things that will be able to provide a more tangible and solid income. Because they are dedicating more time to things outside of playing the game, they get worse. I really don't think it has anything to do with hand speed - instrumentalists of all kinds seem to prove that you can maintain a huge amount of hand dexterity right through to 50's or older. As for tactics and strategy etc, there have been multiple examples of chess grandmasters aged 50+ and still competing at the highest level. So put the two together, and you should be able to tell that age should really not start impeding your SC career until you hit 50+ aside from if you incur RSI or carpal tunnel related injuries, which are avoidable and do not happen to everyone. The main reason, unfortunately, that SC is a young man's game is money (lack of it) and lifestyle (12+ hours a day playing a game becomes too much to handle).
link The hand speed thing is definitely ridiculous. For the strategy/mindset thing, your chess analogy seems right on. Age isn't a major factor when it comes to games like starcraft. Practice however, is.
On December 23 2011 04:47 VPCursed wrote: I Dont know where people get off saying SC2 is more simple.. Mechanic wise i would agree... but strategy? no. SC2 I believe is much more complicated.. there is many more factors that go into the game that is simply not in BW... units have more mobility, units have more hard counters.... there is a'lot less simplicity in the units,ect. I think we will be always be seeing interesting play in SC2. There is just too much shit to try
You will start to see whole picture when you realize that when we mean strategy in RTS games means also tactic(and execution) , which frankly is marginal in sc2 compared to bw. Unit positioning, flanks, smart plays, army movements are much much more game influencing(as in game flow influencing) in bw than in sc2, in fact they are part of your strategy while in sc2 they are just minimal optimalizations given the simpler execution (AI) means less human effort and less difference because of that (because both players will always have "proper" units behavior as default).
The problem with strategy in both broodwar and in starcraft that it always relies in some parts in random variables, you cant predict/scout. And as you said units have more hand counters / are more deadly to each in sc2. Which gives those "random variables" much more power. Is it more interesting? Do we want to see players outplaying each other or simply outcheesing/meta-gaming each other? I would totally want to give a game to player who would be given a chance to set a positional trap to catch protoss army instead of him knowing he lost because he didnt make 5 more drones in 6 minute mark and make spire 20 second faster so he could have 5 more corruptors to kill 2 collosus at 12 minute mark.(random numbers) I dont think its interesting. At least make it that tactics are important not marginal because that was a part of BW, and i so hope this will be available in hots...
then I guess you are not watching the highest levels of Starcraft 2 in the last months. The Blizzard Cup and the last GSL finals where both 95% about positioning and outmaneuvering each other. And the game is still improving greatly in that regard. (also a lot of "lower level" games where completly about positioning, like zenio vs losira - ZvZ - in the up and down matches)
Also pretending that Starcraft:Broodwar doesn't have it's "hardcounters" is just wrong... There are reasons why we hardly ever see bio vs P or carriers vs Z.
And please don't give me any shit about "you don't know a thing about positioning if you think those were good games. Watch this: *Ultra epic game played from the 10year+ history of broodwar*", because first of all: broodwar is more figuered out, so players make less mistakes, so the tiny things like positioning are more important after 10years than after 1year. And second of all: it's another game and no matter how tiny the differences are compared to other RTS games, as long as supertiny patches like +2damage to marines would completly change how the whole game is being played (SC:BW as well as SC2), I don't think that anyone should ever compare two games which have like a thousand of those small differences.
On December 21 2011 09:23 TwoToneTerran wrote: Top BW players are prodigious, given equal practice time it's only reasonable that they'd be better than run of the mill players like MVP. The problem is that a lot of the top BW players find SC2 too simple for their tastes, so this will mostly be irrelevant. If BW does die, then Flash and Jaedong will probably just move on from their lives. They're plenty rich enough as it is.
Good post, this is something that is mostly overlooked in this thread. People talk about the “mass switch” as it is something that inevitably will happen. I still find it unlikely that players that grew up watching BW and have dedicated their lives on playing the game are going to transition to a new game just because it is the sequel. On the contrary, this is not what happened when a more casual sequel was released in other game series like Counter-strike or Smash bros.
Sure, SC2 is a new game and all but BW-players have had a lot of time to switch now and 95 % of the A-teamers have remained active in the BW-scene. There have in fact been a lot more A-teamers that have retired from progaming all together than switching to SC2 (Midas, Anytime, Tempest, Pure, Really, Kwanro, YellOw, BackHo, HoGiL etc.) These could all have performed well in SC2 but decided to pursue other interests in life, such as school and whatnot (Midas was pretty clear on his opinion of SC2). Unless BW is shutdown by Kespa, which I find unlikely given the strong interest for the game in Korea, I don’t see this mass switch happening.
On December 21 2011 09:23 TwoToneTerran wrote: Top BW players are prodigious, given equal practice time it's only reasonable that they'd be better than run of the mill players like MVP. The problem is that a lot of the top BW players find SC2 too simple for their tastes, so this will mostly be irrelevant. If BW does die, then Flash and Jaedong will probably just move on from their lives. They're plenty rich enough as it is.
Good post, this is something that is mostly overlooked in this thread. People talk about the “mass switch” as it is something that inevitably will happen. I still find it unlikely that players that grew up watching BW and have dedicated their lives on playing the game are going to transition to a new game just because it is the sequel. On the contrary, this is not what happened when a more casual sequel was released in other game series like Counter-strike or Smash bros.
Sure, SC2 is a new game and all but BW-players have had a lot of time to switch now and 95 % of the A-teamers have remained active in the BW-scene. There have in fact been a lot more A-teamers that have retired from progaming all together than switching to SC2 (Midas, Anytime, Tempest, Pure, Really, Kwanro, YellOw, BackHo, HoGiL etc.) These could all have performed well in SC2 but decided to pursue other interests in life, such as school and whatnot (Midas was pretty clear on his opinion of SC2). Unless BW is shutdown by Kespa, which I find unlikely given the strong interest for the game in Korea, I don’t see this mass switch happening.
Also another thing that is being overlooked in this thread is that the assumption that good bw-players will perform well in SC2 if they switched can't be wrong, as only the players who perform well will switch in the first place. Which makes the whole statement worthless, as it is a selffullfilling truth. (which could only be altered by forcing bw-players to switch and then see if they perform well)
f.e: if Flash would consider switching (why would he even think about that currently?), he would first train really hard to be able to get to the top initially. outcome 1: He fails to achive that level, he won't switch as he clearly won't go from "superstar" to "just another Code B player". And therefore noone will ever be able to see him failing, at least not over an extended period of time so we always have to assume that he might be good if he was just training hard for a longer time. outcome 2: He becomes really good. Yeah, the the neverwrong statement in action!
On December 21 2011 09:23 TwoToneTerran wrote: Top BW players are prodigious, given equal practice time it's only reasonable that they'd be better than run of the mill players like MVP. The problem is that a lot of the top BW players find SC2 too simple for their tastes, so this will mostly be irrelevant. If BW does die, then Flash and Jaedong will probably just move on from their lives. They're plenty rich enough as it is.
Good post, this is something that is mostly overlooked in this thread. People talk about the “mass switch” as it is something that inevitably will happen. I still find it unlikely that players that grew up watching BW and have dedicated their lives on playing the game are going to transition to a new game just because it is the sequel. On the contrary, this is not what happened when a more casual sequel was released in other game series like Counter-strike or Smash bros.
Sure, SC2 is a new game and all but BW-players have had a lot of time to switch now and 95 % of the A-teamers have remained active in the BW-scene. There have in fact been a lot more A-teamers that have retired from progaming all together than switching to SC2 (Midas, Anytime, Tempest, Pure, Really, Kwanro, YellOw, BackHo, HoGiL etc.) These could all have performed well in SC2 but decided to pursue other interests in life, such as school and whatnot (Midas was pretty clear on his opinion of SC2). Unless BW is shutdown by Kespa, which I find unlikely given the strong interest for the game in Korea, I don’t see this mass switch happening.
Also another thing that is being overlooked in this thread is that the assumption that good bw-players will perform well in SC2 if they switched can't be wrong, as only the players who perform well will switch in the first place. Which makes the whole statement worthless, as it is a selffullfilling truth. (which could only be altered by forcing bw-players to switch and then see if they perform well)
f.e: if Flash would consider switching (why would he even think about that currently?), he would first train really hard to be able to get to the top initially. outcome 1: He fails to achive that level, he won't switch as he clearly won't go from "superstar" to "just another Code B player". And therefore noone will ever be able to see him failing, at least not over an extended period of time so we always have to assume that he might be good if he was just training hard for a longer time. outcome 2: He becomes really good. Yeah, the the neverwrong statement in action!
as someone who prides myself are seeing this kind of statement, i never once actually realized this was a self-sustaining truth. Thank you for that.
Bullshit on so many of these posts. I'm so tired of nostalgia fanboys who will claim their old favorite is better and harder in every way no matter what and warp any reality to meet that line of thought. Seriously, having played and watched both games extensively, realistically both are equally hard in different ways. Just because some things are simpler mechanically doesn't mean shit, all it means is the truly best players will have more time to do more stuff rather then have to focus on more mundane "harder" mechanics. I'm sorry but anyone not bias can see how managing more tasks in the same amount of time is every bit as difficult as managing fewer more mundane tasks. Not to mention not all the things BW fanboys claim are harder mechanically realistically are, I bet half these guys never even played the game... Unit control in both games is equally hard in different ways and there's still tons of room for sc2 players to grow and improve their unit control.
The only difference is SC2 players haven't reached anywhere near the level BW pros are at because the game has been out far shorter and yes they have a less talented player pool since it's logical the best starcraft players stayed in BW rather than risk switching. Yes, BW players have more skill right now, but not because BW is such a harder game than SC2, because they have been practicing harder for longer and have more geniuses among their ranks. This doesn't mean every SC2 pro is automatically < every BW pro, or that geniuses will only be geniuses if they play BW. There are some young up and coming players in SC2 that I think would be up and coming in BW too if they went to that game years ago, guys like Leenock. It's only logical though that it would take longer to become a top player in BW now than in SC2 because you are so many more years behind in comparison. Strategies, tactics, etc are still being developed every day. This argument is so trite and pathetic and just a fanboy epeen argument.
On December 23 2011 09:04 gn0m wrote: [...] There have in fact been a lot more A-teamers that have retired from progaming all together than switching to SC2 ([...] YellOw, [...]) These could all have performed well in SC2 but decided to pursue other interests in life, such as school and whatnot (Midas was pretty clear on his opinion of SC2). Unless BW is shutdown by Kespa, which I find unlikely given the strong interest for the game in Korea, I don’t see this mass switch happening.
On December 23 2011 09:04 gn0m wrote: [...] There have in fact been a lot more A-teamers that have retired from progaming all together than switching to SC2 ([...] YellOw, [...]) These could all have performed well in SC2 but decided to pursue other interests in life, such as school and whatnot (Midas was pretty clear on his opinion of SC2). Unless BW is shutdown by Kespa, which I find unlikely given the strong interest for the game in Korea, I don’t see this mass switch happening.
Yeah... Or not.
lol if anyone thinks Yellow was an A-teamer at the end of his career. If you're trying to be snarky atleast try to get it right.
On December 25 2011 03:58 darkest44 wrote: Bullshit on so many of these posts. I'm so tired of nostalgia fanboys who will claim their old favorite is better and harder in every way no matter what and warp any reality to meet that line of thought. Seriously, having played and watched both games extensively, realistically both are equally hard in different ways. Just because some things are simpler mechanically doesn't mean shit, all it means is the truly best players will have more time to do more stuff rather then have to focus on more mundane "harder" mechanics. I'm sorry but anyone not bias can see how managing more tasks in the same amount of time is every bit as difficult as managing fewer more mundane tasks. Not to mention not all the things BW fanboys claim are harder mechanically realistically are, I bet half these guys never even played the game... Unit control in both games is equally hard in different ways and there's still tons of room for sc2 players to grow and improve their unit control.
C'mon bro, nobody who's played BW or seen pro's play is going to think even for a second that the mechanics in SC2 are even close to being as hard as in BW. The argument people make that since the mechanics are easier the players have more time to do stuff is retarded. Having more stuff to do is always going to make the skill ceiling higher. There's no such thing as time management in SC2; The mechanics are much easier that you don't have to make a big choice weather to micro or macro at the expense of the other.
The only difference is SC2 players haven't reached anywhere near the level BW pros are at because the game has been out far shorter and yes they have a less talented player pool since it's logical the best starcraft players stayed in BW rather than risk switching. Yes, BW players have more skill right now, but not because BW is such a harder game than SC2, because they have been practicing harder for longer and have more geniuses among their ranks. This doesn't mean every SC2 pro is automatically < every BW pro, or that geniuses will only be geniuses if they play BW. There are some young up and coming players in SC2 that I think would be up and coming in BW too if they went to that game years ago, guys like Leenock. It's only logical though that it would take longer to become a top player in BW now than in SC2 because you are so many more years behind in comparison.
That arguments also really retarded. You do realize BW was one of the first competitive RTS games in a genre that was still in it's infancy. SC2 is released over 10 years later, getting excellent mechanics and optimal build orders/unit compositions takes much less time when people have 10 years of experience to work on. BW is the much harder game atm. That's not saying SC2 couldn't get much closer in the future with expansions, but it is an easier game in its current state.
Strategies, tactics, etc are still being developed every day. This argument is so trite and pathetic and just a fanboy epeen argument.
Lol that's the same with BW. New stuff is being figured out every month, the game hasn't stopped evolving yet.
In my opinion your arguments are the ones that look pathetic. You have no idea buddy
IdrA's great on interviews. Light-years ahead of almost all of his competitors in terms of social skills (poise, confidence, level of commentary.) If he develops his mental toughness in-game, he could be something really special.
I don't agree with him about SC2 though. He's basically saying he wants the most talented player to win. From a competitor standpoint, I can empathize with that. But from a spectator standpoint, I prefer to get the full array of dramatic series, underdog stories, Cinderella runs, and amazing upsets. If you look at the NHL for example, you have a league that's very well balanced in terms of skill, partly because the least successful teams are rewarded with high draft picks that over time allow them to bounce back (well, except for the New York Islanders...) Each season you'll be looking to 4-5 teams to win it, but realistically there are 10-20 teams that could go all the way if the stars align in their favor. And the team that people predict to win the Stanley Cup each season almost never does it. (*cough* Washington *cough*) There hasn't been a repeat champion since 1998. So, if you're gonna poll me, I say, I don't care if "less skilled teams" win now and then.
All that aside though, let's not forget the crucial aspect of viewership. The more people who learn to play SC2 and understand the game, the more people who watch streams, VODs, live events, tournaments, etc. SC2 is easier to learn than BW, and it's showing in the number of people who play (and watch) the game now.
On December 23 2011 04:47 VPCursed wrote: I Dont know where people get off saying SC2 is more simple.. Mechanic wise i would agree... but strategy? no. SC2 I believe is much more complicated.. there is many more factors that go into the game that is simply not in BW... units have more mobility, units have more hard counters.... there is a'lot less simplicity in the units,ect. I think we will be always be seeing interesting play in SC2. There is just too much shit to try
You will start to see whole picture when you realize that when we mean strategy in RTS games means also tactic(and execution) , which frankly is marginal in sc2 compared to bw. Unit positioning, flanks, smart plays, army movements are much much more game influencing(as in game flow influencing) in bw than in sc2, in fact they are part of your strategy while in sc2 they are just minimal optimalizations given the simpler execution (AI) means less human effort and less difference because of that (because both players will always have "proper" units behavior as default).
The problem with strategy in both broodwar and in starcraft that it always relies in some parts in random variables, you cant predict/scout. And as you said units have more hand counters / are more deadly to each in sc2. Which gives those "random variables" much more power. Is it more interesting? Do we want to see players outplaying each other or simply outcheesing/meta-gaming each other? I would totally want to give a game to player who would be given a chance to set a positional trap to catch protoss army instead of him knowing he lost because he didnt make 5 more drones in 6 minute mark and make spire 20 second faster so he could have 5 more corruptors to kill 2 collosus at 12 minute mark.(random numbers) I dont think its interesting. At least make it that tactics are important not marginal because that was a part of BW, and i so hope this will be available in hots...
then I guess you are not watching the highest levels of Starcraft 2 in the last months. The Blizzard Cup and the last GSL finals where both 95% about positioning and outmaneuvering each other. And the game is still improving greatly in that regard. (also a lot of "lower level" games where completly about positioning, like zenio vs losira - ZvZ - in the up and down matches)
Also pretending that Starcraft:Broodwar doesn't have it's "hardcounters" is just wrong... There are reasons why we hardly ever see bio vs P or carriers vs Z.
And please don't give me any shit about "you don't know a thing about positioning if you think those were good games. Watch this: *Ultra epic game played from the 10year+ history of broodwar*", because first of all: broodwar is more figuered out, so players make less mistakes, so the tiny things like positioning are more important after 10years than after 1year. And second of all: it's another game and no matter how tiny the differences are compared to other RTS games, as long as supertiny patches like +2damage to marines would completly change how the whole game is being played (SC:BW as well as SC2), I don't think that anyone should ever compare two games which have like a thousand of those small differences.
No where in bgx statements says that sc bw has no hard counter , so face palm for the another 100 times and besides that maybe you haven't been in the bw scene at all because in 2007- 2008 is where the creativity comes from . Carries versus Zerg ? Let me show you some games than .
On December 25 2011 03:58 darkest44 wrote: Bullshit on so many of these posts. I'm so tired of nostalgia fanboys who will claim their old favorite is better and harder in every way no matter what and warp any reality to meet that line of thought. Seriously, having played and watched both games extensively, realistically both are equally hard in different ways. Just because some things are simpler mechanically doesn't mean shit, all it means is the truly best players will have more time to do more stuff rather then have to focus on more mundane "harder" mechanics. I'm sorry but anyone not bias can see how managing more tasks in the same amount of time is every bit as difficult as managing fewer more mundane tasks. Not to mention not all the things BW fanboys claim are harder mechanically realistically are, I bet half these guys never even played the game... Unit control in both games is equally hard in different ways and there's still tons of room for sc2 players to grow and improve their unit control.
The only difference is SC2 players haven't reached anywhere near the level BW pros are at because the game has been out far shorter and yes they have a less talented player pool since it's logical the best starcraft players stayed in BW rather than risk switching. Yes, BW players have more skill right now, but not because BW is such a harder game than SC2, because they have been practicing harder for longer and have more geniuses among their ranks. This doesn't mean every SC2 pro is automatically < every BW pro, or that geniuses will only be geniuses if they play BW. There are some young up and coming players in SC2 that I think would be up and coming in BW too if they went to that game years ago, guys like Leenock. It's only logical though that it would take longer to become a top player in BW now than in SC2 because you are so many more years behind in comparison. Strategies, tactics, etc are still being developed every day. This argument is so trite and pathetic and just a fanboy epeen argument.
You said you played both games extensively, what was your iccup rank?
I agree, right clicking minerals all day is a much more interesting macro mechanic than mule, injects and chrono boost timings. Also, ai that makes units wander aimlessly is much better than smooth ai, because good micro is being able to right click the screen at 300apm just to get a dragoon up the ramp. That is the true show of skill in Starcraft. Right clicking minerals and right clicking ramps. Sc2 should learn from that.
On December 26 2011 02:25 lorkac wrote: I agree, right clicking minerals all day is a much more interesting macro mechanic than mule, injects and chrono boost timings. Also, ai that makes units wander aimlessly is much better than smooth ai, because good micro is being able to right click the screen at 300apm just to get a dragoon up the ramp. That is the true show of skill in Starcraft. Right clicking minerals and right clicking ramps. Sc2 should learn from that.
Yeah, also it's good to think before you post something.
EPT
