|
Same rules apply, per usual. Please use the appropriate threads (QQ, Brag, Champion, etc) whenever appropriate. Keep the resident Banling content.
Thanks. Happy Gaming. |
On March 08 2012 12:33 Zdrastochye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:23 Bladeorade wrote:
What I don't understand is why people think SC2 is difficult. Game is not difficult to learn how to play. Everything is dumbed down and getting good doesn't take all that long. A couple months dedicated and you can hit masters.
I honestly think any high masters players understand this and it is mostly the shitty majority of the SC2 community that trashes other games. If you actually hit masters in SC2, you've come a long way mechanically from just starting, especially so if it's your first RTS. The concept of last hitting, paying attention to the minimap, and landing skillshots seems a lot easier than managing all the actions required over the course of a SC2 game.
Well I wonder. I used to be high-mid masters back when I played and it doesn't really take that much. I had no clue about most builds or army compositions or strategy or any shit like that. As Zerg I basically just expanded and macroed and tried to be safe and then basically flank amoved to win games and that way got to masters etc. Like the mechanics are pretty simple mostly, it's mostly about spending some time experimenting what you can get away with macrowise and then learning unit counters and some stuff, but yeah I don't think I've ever been good at all at the game and got mid-high masters after about 300 games of SC2. I guess I played SCBW a bit but even so I don't consider SC2 all that difficult of a game in general. Of course you need to dedicate to it fully to play as a professional but such is the case with LoL and Dota2 all the same, even though I'd agree they are more knowledge-based. For instance just learning what all the champions can do and how well champions trade with each other and what you can get away with mostly takes experience instead of mechanic skill, pretty much like SC2.
And what game do I consider actually difficult, then? Super smash bros melee is still the only one I've had trouble with mechanics-wise out of the games I've spent a ton of time on.
|
On March 08 2012 12:39 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:33 Zdrastochye wrote:On March 08 2012 12:23 Bladeorade wrote:
What I don't understand is why people think SC2 is difficult. Game is not difficult to learn how to play. Everything is dumbed down and getting good doesn't take all that long. A couple months dedicated and you can hit masters.
I honestly think any high masters players understand this and it is mostly the shitty majority of the SC2 community that trashes other games. If you actually hit masters in SC2, you've come a long way mechanically from just starting, especially so if it's your first RTS. The concept of last hitting, paying attention to the minimap, and landing skillshots seems a lot easier than managing all the actions required over the course of a SC2 game. Well I wonder. I used to be high-mid masters back when I played and it doesn't really take that much. I had no clue about most builds or army compositions or strategy or any shit like that. As Zerg I basically just expanded and macroed and tried to be safe and then basically flank amoved to win games and that way got to masters etc. Like the mechanics are pretty simple mostly, it's mostly about spending some time experimenting what you can get away with macrowise and then learning unit counters and some stuff, but yeah I don't think I've ever been good at all at the game and got mid-high masters after about 300 games of SC2. I guess I played SCBW a bit but even so I don't consider SC2 all that difficult of a game in general. Of course you need to dedicate to it fully to play as a professional but such is the case with LoL and Dota2 all the same, even though I'd agree they are more knowledge-based. For instance just learning what all the champions can do and how well champions trade with each other and what you can get away with mostly takes experience instead of mechanic skill, pretty much like SC2. And what game do I consider actually difficult, then? Super smash bros melee is still the only one I've had trouble with mechanics-wise out of the games I've spent a ton of time on.
I don't understand why people think that hitting Masters has anything to do with the game being difficult or not.
Masters is defined based on how good other players are -- it's a percentage of the player population. It doesn't matter how hard the game is, you're only compared to other players.
If the same people played BW, you'd probably be a masters there too. ICCup players are a very different population from the general SC2 population, that's why it's easy to place highly, not because of anything innately connected to the game.
I find it hard to understand what exactly people mean by saying "hard" when it's a zero-sum game and you're playing against humans. Some people seem to mean that there's just many casual people playing, others mean how long it takes to reach a certain percentile within the ladder/ranking system, others mean how long it takes for professional players to start plateauing, and all of these are very different metrics.
|
On March 08 2012 12:33 Zdrastochye wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:23 Bladeorade wrote:
What I don't understand is why people think SC2 is difficult. Game is not difficult to learn how to play. Everything is dumbed down and getting good doesn't take all that long. A couple months dedicated and you can hit masters.
I honestly think any high masters players understand this and it is mostly the shitty majority of the SC2 community that trashes other games. If you actually hit masters in SC2, you've come a long way mechanically from just starting, especially so if it's your first RTS. The concept of last hitting, paying attention to the minimap, and landing skillshots seems a lot easier than managing all the actions required over the course of a SC2 game.
Sure you have come a long way, but that doesn't mean it is difficult. I used to play Halo 1 and 2 competitively and SC1/Brood War for fun and I found FPS far more difficult than any RTS. I am not saying LoL is more difficult than SC2, just that neither of them are particularly difficult to learn and become competent at and the argument is mostly between the majority of people who are terrible at both games.
|
On March 08 2012 12:34 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:33 turdburgler wrote:On March 08 2012 12:19 UniversalSnip wrote:
nobody plays put the ball in the net. they play relatively complex games with lots of rules about how you can touch the ball. you find the rules of either basketball or football "complex"? international basketball federation rulebook is 80 pages long
the ability for bureaucrats to need 10 pages where most people need 10 words is not a metric for complexity.
|
On March 08 2012 12:50 Bladeorade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:33 Zdrastochye wrote:On March 08 2012 12:23 Bladeorade wrote:
What I don't understand is why people think SC2 is difficult. Game is not difficult to learn how to play. Everything is dumbed down and getting good doesn't take all that long. A couple months dedicated and you can hit masters.
I honestly think any high masters players understand this and it is mostly the shitty majority of the SC2 community that trashes other games. If you actually hit masters in SC2, you've come a long way mechanically from just starting, especially so if it's your first RTS. The concept of last hitting, paying attention to the minimap, and landing skillshots seems a lot easier than managing all the actions required over the course of a SC2 game. Sure you have come a long way, but that doesn't mean it is difficult. I used to play Halo 1 and 2 competitively and SC1/Brood War for fun and I found FPS far more difficult than any RTS. I am not saying LoL is more difficult than SC2, just that neither of them are particularly difficult to learn and become competent at and the argument is mostly between the majority of people who are terrible at both games.
But what do you base your argument on other than personal experience, and why is your opinion more valid than that of terrible players?
To me this whole thing looks like a pointless discussion between people who think their personal opinion of how "successful" they are at a game is a valid indicator of how difficult the game is for a population at large, while completely ignoring the fact that the goals (masters league? win a weekly tournament? GSL champion), the background, and the effort invested in the game are usually very different for different people.
Mogwai made a good point saying how the games are different and why APM isn't the lone factor to measure the difficulty of a game.
Just chiming in by saying "I achieved X and I find game Y to be very easy" doesn't really add anything other than controversy. Most people don't take SC2 or LoL very seriously (at least as far as their training methods are concerned), so of course most people will be easy to beat if that is your stated goal. That is not really relevant to the discussion.
Doing well at a game/sport says more about your competition than anything about the game.
Edit: Maybe I'm not making the analogy clear enough.
Is football harder than basketball?
What does that question even mean?
What is your metric for being "competent" at either sport, and why would those metrics be comparable given that the games require different skill sets, and given that it is entirely reasonable to assume that not everyone is equally talented at them?
Yes, playing football with one eye closed and one hand tied behind your back is harder than playing football the other way, but that's because one assumes that you're competing against the same people without those restrictions.
If you compare different games, the rules, the competition, and the required skill set becomes different. If everyone plays with one eye closed and one hand tied behind the back, is the game really harder? Wouldn't people just adjust their level of what "competent" means?
|
|
|
On March 08 2012 13:01 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:50 Bladeorade wrote:On March 08 2012 12:33 Zdrastochye wrote:On March 08 2012 12:23 Bladeorade wrote:
What I don't understand is why people think SC2 is difficult. Game is not difficult to learn how to play. Everything is dumbed down and getting good doesn't take all that long. A couple months dedicated and you can hit masters.
I honestly think any high masters players understand this and it is mostly the shitty majority of the SC2 community that trashes other games. If you actually hit masters in SC2, you've come a long way mechanically from just starting, especially so if it's your first RTS. The concept of last hitting, paying attention to the minimap, and landing skillshots seems a lot easier than managing all the actions required over the course of a SC2 game. Sure you have come a long way, but that doesn't mean it is difficult. I used to play Halo 1 and 2 competitively and SC1/Brood War for fun and I found FPS far more difficult than any RTS. I am not saying LoL is more difficult than SC2, just that neither of them are particularly difficult to learn and become competent at and the argument is mostly between the majority of people who are terrible at both games. But what do you base your argument on other than personal experience, and why is your opinion more valid than that of terrible players? To me this whole thing looks like a pointless discussion between people who think their personal opinion of how "successful" they are at a game is a valid indicator of how difficult the game is for a population at large, while completely ignoring the fact that the goals (masters league? win a weekly tournament? GSL champion), the background, and the effort invested in the game are usually very different for different people. Mogwai made a good point saying how the games are different and why APM isn't the lone factor to measure the difficulty of a game. Just chiming in by saying "I achieved X and I find game Y to be very easy" doesn't really add anything other than controversy. Most people don't take SC2 or LoL very seriously (at least as far as their training methods are concerned), so of course most people will be easy to beat if that is your stated goal. That is not really relevant to the discussion. Doing well at a game/sport says more about your competition than anything about the game. Edit: Maybe I'm not making the analogy clear enough. Is football harder than basketball? What does that question even mean? What is your metric for being "competent" at either sport, and why would those metrics be comparable given that the games require different skill sets, and given that it is entirely reasonable to assume that not everyone is equally talented at them? Yes, playing football with one eye closed and one hand tied behind your back is harder than playing football the other way, but that's because one assumes that you're competing against the same people without those restrictions. If you compare different games, the rules, the competition, and the required skill set becomes different. If everyone plays with one eye closed and one hand tied behind the back, is the game really harder? Wouldn't people just adjust their level of what "competent" means?
My whole point was it's pointless. My opinion is worthless.
|
im surprised he thinks the only difference between ranked and normals is elo. the gameplay difference is massive, dont think ive ever seen a support played in normal
|
On March 08 2012 13:18 Glaceau wrote:
dont think ive ever seen a support played in normal
I do it all the time, and see them all the time in my opposition.
|
On March 08 2012 13:18 Glaceau wrote:im surprised he thinks the only difference between ranked and normals is elo. the gameplay difference is massive, dont think ive ever seen a support played in normal
Most (95%+) of my normal games since I hit 30 have been standard support+ad bot, only a few trolls here and there breaking that pattern. :O
|
It's entirely dependent on both your normal Elo and your ranked Elo. When your normals are pretty much always filled with players between 1500 and 2300 Elo, you tend to get teams that follow the standard ranked setups. If you had a large gap between your ranked and normal Elo, then you'd obviously have a much different experience between the two.
Regardless, ranked players do try much harder to win while normal players are less worried about the result and are often playing champs they're new to or bad with.
|
TIL that Dyrus' lack of map-awareness in game also translates into real life as he thinks that Las Vegas is in California.
IRL LOCKED SCREEN.
|
On March 08 2012 12:58 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:34 UniversalSnip wrote:On March 08 2012 12:33 turdburgler wrote:On March 08 2012 12:19 UniversalSnip wrote:
nobody plays put the ball in the net. they play relatively complex games with lots of rules about how you can touch the ball. you find the rules of either basketball or football "complex"? international basketball federation rulebook is 80 pages long the ability for bureaucrats to need 10 pages where most people need 10 words is not a metric for complexity.
ok...
|
On March 08 2012 12:58 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 12:34 UniversalSnip wrote:On March 08 2012 12:33 turdburgler wrote:On March 08 2012 12:19 UniversalSnip wrote:
nobody plays put the ball in the net. they play relatively complex games with lots of rules about how you can touch the ball. you find the rules of either basketball or football "complex"? international basketball federation rulebook is 80 pages long the ability for bureaucrats to need 10 pages where most people need 10 words is not a metric for complexity.
So... an appeal to ignorance.
|
The reason rulebooks are so long is because you have to be excruciatingly specific to minimize loopholes.
|
On March 08 2012 14:16 Craton wrote:
The reason rulebooks are so long is because you have to be excruciatingly specific to minimize loopholes.
The more rules there are the more loopholes exist.
Imagine how much simpler golf would be if the only rule was play the ball as it lies and use a stick. Hell, there are a bunch of rules in basketball dealing with all the loopholes created by the "you need to dribble" rule.
|
since we finally seem to have a discussion on the esports viability of LoL that has some modicum of civility, i'll chirp in and try to be slightly more objective about it instead of violently responding to morons.
the ONLY thing i agree with that the nay-sayers of competitive LoL have to say is in regards to LoL's burden of knowledge. It's alleviated by its massive playerbase, but the one thing I hear time and time again from video game gentiles is that they have no idea what's going on in LoL. RTS's, fighters and FPS's (tho FPS's can be less obvious sometimes) are obvious in that respect. In RTS, you control an army, and blow up the other guy's army, simple as that. The winner is usually defined by the guy who has better positioning and a bigger army, visual cues which are universally clear. In fighters, you duke it out 1v1, and most, if not all actions are viscerally obvious and appealing. These kinds of battles are easy enough to follow for someone who knows nothing about the game. FPS's can be hit or miss in that regard (from my experience, which I'll have you know is.much more limited than the other two). For example, I've recently been into Tribes: ascend (a very fun game btw  ) and I'll confess it's been very difficult for me to get into the CTF scene, because I literally have no clue what's going on with all the generators and turrets and shit. I think counterstrike does a much better job of this tho, so it's hard to make these kinds of generalizations about FPS's (not to mention I know next to nothing of halo or quake).
LoL (and LoL is a generalization of all MOBA's to an extent) on the other hand, has a huge amount of spell vs spell interaction as integral and fundamental mechanics, that one probably won't understand without having a basic prior knowledge of how they work. For example, it's not intuitively obvious to an uninformed spectator what is going on when Lee sin uses tempest on akali while she is in her shroud. Now, this wouldn't be that much of a problem if it were a simple mechanical task, but these spell interactions are such a core aspects of gameplay that when one team loses a teamfight, it's not always totally obvious why they lost (again, remember this is to an uninformed spectator).
Again though, this is where LoL's competitive scene has a distinct advantage due to the existing, massive playerbase and the free-to-play model that allows anyone to jump in and try it at no cost other than time. So, overall I don't think that this drawback is enough to really hamper LoL's growth as an esport.
also, thanks, as always, to smash for so eloquently expressing what so many of us were thinking, looking forward to your next blog post 
ps: y i see no corgis in your blog... it's like if I made a blog without putting any bears in it
|
On March 08 2012 14:16 Craton wrote:
The reason rulebooks are so long is because you have to be excruciatingly specific to minimize loopholes.
^This
If you have any online gaming background not too many games really are "hard" to get "good" at. It only takes a few months to learn the game itself and in that time your mechanics grow to a respectable level. Games like starcraft BW require a lot more apm than other games, which can be mechanically challenging for many people, but that doesn't necessarily make a game "hard" to get good at, since even in starcraft apm isn't everything.
Like just learning the champs and everything they can do in LoL can take a few months, and within those months you'd also be working on your own mechanics. There are very few games like this you can just pick up and know the ins and outs within a few minutes/hours/days.
|
as far as what I like and don't like competitively the only thing I don't like is that there are so few kills at the top level.
curse vs tsm was a really good game and they were averaging one kill every 8 minutes until well into the game. that's just awful, it makes things excruciatingly boring to watch two guys sustaining at each other for 10 minutes or two guys with blue buff just clearing waves at each other for 10 minutes.
|
On March 08 2012 14:22 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 14:16 Craton wrote:
The reason rulebooks are so long is because you have to be excruciatingly specific to minimize loopholes. The more rules there are the more loopholes exist. Imagine how much simpler golf would be if the only rule was play the ball as it lies and use a stick. Hell, there are a bunch of rules in basketball dealing with all the loopholes created by the "you need to dribble" rule.
Design a stick that can pick up the ball and walk it there!
Oh wait they have rules on what kind of sticks you can use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
