|
On July 05 2011 11:29 Badfatpanda wrote:
To those who are saying that was stupid and spur of the moment it was a very smart play from qxc. Due to the build time on the reaper he could queue that while getting conc and a marauder out. Reapers do better damage against light than marines and he needed some dps to kill the zealots while the mara kites them.
His expand to the gold was a great decision in theory because the marauder and reaper pressure along with the scouted proxy rax (no twilight didn't scout the location but he knew it was somewhere) to try and keep him afraid and in his base. The play rested on twilight not pushing before the marauder was out and at his ramp.
I loved his opening, and I think it could have worked out very well had he done something to control the map a little more. Even just hopping the reaper up into the main to keep Twilight occupied long enough for the marauder to come out would have been better than chasing the probe and just gging. 
|
On July 05 2011 11:27 jmbthirteen wrote:
Well that confirms Day9
hope so
|
On July 05 2011 09:00 bkrow wrote:I don't know if i should say this out loud; but Reach is actually really entertaining.. I think i am going to go have a shower
Nothing to be ashamed of Bkrow! I hope you all enjoyed the Halo Show Match between Status Quo and Dynasty. I know Shockwave and I had a great time casting it.
Big shoutout to Marc, JP, and Slasher for putting this all together! I had a blast watching all the different titles and reading everyone's feedback. You TL guys are truly an amazing vocal community and you tell it like it is.
Hit me up with thoughts on today's Halo Reach match @MLGPuckett
|
Wait, so how long until SOTG? I am unfamiliar with CST
|
On July 05 2011 11:37 Icekommander wrote:
Wait, so how long until SOTG? I am unfamiliar with CST
20 mins
|
On July 05 2011 11:38 Charger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 11:37 Icekommander wrote:
Wait, so how long until SOTG? I am unfamiliar with CST 20 mins
Wrong. 10:30pm CST is in 50 minutes. I think they expect us to look at that flashy logo for an hour.
|
On July 05 2011 11:36 MLGPuckett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 09:00 bkrow wrote:I don't know if i should say this out loud; but Reach is actually really entertaining.. I think i am going to go have a shower Nothing to be ashamed of Bkrow! I hope you all enjoyed the Halo Show Match between Status Quo and Dynasty. I know Shockwave and I had a great time casting it. Big shoutout to Marc, JP, and Slasher for putting this all together! I had a blast watching all the different titles and reading everyone's feedback. You TL guys are truly an amazing vocal community and you tell it like it is. Hit me up with thoughts on today's Halo Reach match @MLGPuckett
not easy to get "meeh, fps" persons interested in just that, but you managed well!
cheers for a fun event
|
On July 05 2011 11:40 Ezze wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 11:38 Charger wrote:On July 05 2011 11:37 Icekommander wrote:
Wait, so how long until SOTG? I am unfamiliar with CST 20 mins Wrong. 10:30pm CST is in 50 minutes. I think they expect us to look at that flashy logo for an hour.
At 9:20 PM CST, JP said be back for SotG in 40 mins which makes the time of SotG 10:00 PM CST. It is currently 9:40 PM CST, so 20 mins.
|
On July 05 2011 11:41 Charger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 11:40 Ezze wrote:On July 05 2011 11:38 Charger wrote:On July 05 2011 11:37 Icekommander wrote:
Wait, so how long until SOTG? I am unfamiliar with CST 20 mins Wrong. 10:30pm CST is in 50 minutes. I think they expect us to look at that flashy logo for an hour. At 9:20 PM CST, JP said be back for SotG in 40 mins which makes the time of SotG 10:00 PM CST. It is currently 9:40 PM CST, so 20 mins.
Is that why it says 10:30 CST at the bottom of the stream then?
|
On July 05 2011 11:43 Andrew2658 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 11:41 Charger wrote:On July 05 2011 11:40 Ezze wrote:On July 05 2011 11:38 Charger wrote:On July 05 2011 11:37 Icekommander wrote:
Wait, so how long until SOTG? I am unfamiliar with CST 20 mins Wrong. 10:30pm CST is in 50 minutes. I think they expect us to look at that flashy logo for an hour. At 9:20 PM CST, JP said be back for SotG in 40 mins which makes the time of SotG 10:00 PM CST. It is currently 9:40 PM CST, so 20 mins. Is that why it says 10:30 CST at the bottom of the stream then?
We've been over this. The MLG schedule says 10:30 CST, the TL calendar and the SotG thread (which JP edits himself) says 10:00 PM CST. JP also just 20 minutes ago confirmed it will start at 10:00 PM CST. I have no idea which time is actually correct, I'm going on what JP said and the TL calendar and the SotG thread.
|
On July 05 2011 11:36 MLGPuckett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 09:00 bkrow wrote:I don't know if i should say this out loud; but Reach is actually really entertaining.. I think i am going to go have a shower Nothing to be ashamed of Bkrow! I hope you all enjoyed the Halo Show Match between Status Quo and Dynasty. I know Shockwave and I had a great time casting it. Big shoutout to Marc, JP, and Slasher for putting this all together! I had a blast watching all the different titles and reading everyone's feedback. You TL guys are truly an amazing vocal community and you tell it like it is. Hit me up with thoughts on today's Halo Reach match @MLGPuckett
Ty for the cast, the match was amazing :D
|
On July 05 2011 11:36 MLGPuckett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 09:00 bkrow wrote:I don't know if i should say this out loud; but Reach is actually really entertaining.. I think i am going to go have a shower Nothing to be ashamed of Bkrow! I hope you all enjoyed the Halo Show Match between Status Quo and Dynasty. I know Shockwave and I had a great time casting it. Big shoutout to Marc, JP, and Slasher for putting this all together! I had a blast watching all the different titles and reading everyone's feedback. You TL guys are truly an amazing vocal community and you tell it like it is. Hit me up with thoughts on today's Halo Reach match @MLGPuckett
Puckett! Great showmatch. Curious to see how the god squad is going to do on the v5 maps/settings - guess we'll find out soon enough :-)
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:21 Slakter wrote:On July 05 2011 09:16 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:15 Maliris wrote:On July 05 2011 09:08 Slakter wrote:On July 05 2011 09:06 Kevan wrote:On July 05 2011 09:05 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
Honestly should have seen Halo2 which might have been most entertainign shooter i have ever seen. Should have seen Halo:CE, best console shooter ever Which doesnt really mean a lot ^^ I would not have a problem at all with Halo if it wasnt that they play it on an inferior format for competative gaming... indeed, console fps is a joke I understand saying a PC is the only way to play an RTS but you cant give me a good reason why an FPS has to be played on PC. (actually when Halo 1 was on PC it was terrible) Better precision. Which is pretty much everything in FPS. Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower.
It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball.
EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible.
|
On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:21 Slakter wrote:On July 05 2011 09:16 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:15 Maliris wrote:On July 05 2011 09:08 Slakter wrote:On July 05 2011 09:06 Kevan wrote:
[quote]
Should have seen Halo:CE, best console shooter ever Which doesnt really mean a lot ^^ I would not have a problem at all with Halo if it wasnt that they play it on an inferior format for competative gaming... indeed, console fps is a joke I understand saying a PC is the only way to play an RTS but you cant give me a good reason why an FPS has to be played on PC. (actually when Halo 1 was on PC it was terrible) Better precision. Which is pretty much everything in FPS. Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible.
All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement...
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:21 Slakter wrote:On July 05 2011 09:16 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:15 Maliris wrote:On July 05 2011 09:08 Slakter wrote:
[quote]
Which doesnt really mean a lot ^^
I would not have a problem at all with Halo if it wasnt that they play it on an inferior format for competative gaming... indeed, console fps is a joke I understand saying a PC is the only way to play an RTS but you cant give me a good reason why an FPS has to be played on PC. (actually when Halo 1 was on PC it was terrible) Better precision. Which is pretty much everything in FPS. Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement...
Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable.
|
On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:21 Slakter wrote:On July 05 2011 09:16 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:15 Maliris wrote:
[quote]
indeed, console fps is a joke I understand saying a PC is the only way to play an RTS but you cant give me a good reason why an FPS has to be played on PC. (actually when Halo 1 was on PC it was terrible) Better precision. Which is pretty much everything in FPS. Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable.
Better is sort of a relative term. The more of a amount of proes one has in a field the higher the play will evolve to. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. To say that the best players play PC games though is probably true because PC games have a much more global fanbase and thus global playerbase whereas consoles are more of a NA fanbase and playerbase.
|
Why do the insist that BO be played on consoles instead of PCs? Just curious.
|
why does TLO have a dutch next to him and not a german one?
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:21 Slakter wrote:On July 05 2011 09:16 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
I understand saying a PC is the only way to play an RTS but you cant give me a good reason why an FPS has to be played on PC. (actually when Halo 1 was on PC it was terrible) Better precision. Which is pretty much everything in FPS. Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong.
How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate.
To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that.
|
On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:21 Slakter wrote:
[quote]
Better precision. Which is pretty much everything in FPS. Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better.
3 targets, any location in sight but you dont know exactly where and with that test I cant promise you PC gets them first just as I cant promise you the console player gets them first. It depends on the skill of the person playing and there skill with the game they are playing. I am sure you would hit it first but for example I have spent years playing both PC shooters and console shooters and I cant say which one I would hit the targets with first it would depend on which targets I spot first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
