EPTOn June 04 2012 15:44 DMXD wrote:
best game by far this PL =D
best game by far this PL =D
stats vs horang2 was better
[SPL] Woongjin Stars vs. Air Force ACE - Page 5
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
stats vs horang2 was better | ||
|
rysecake
United States2632 Posts
| ||
KristofferAG
Norway25712 Posts
On June 04 2012 15:47 rysecake wrote: i was hoping fbh would win so we could see him strip. I are dissappoint =( Feels like Air Force ACE are really strict on stuff like ceremonies anyway. | ||
|
Talionis
Scotland4085 Posts
Zero's going to wipe the floor with him | ||
|
FuRong
New Zealand3089 Posts
Stats vs Bogus was pretty good too. | ||
|
KristofferAG
Norway25712 Posts
| ||
|
DMXD
United States4064 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
| ||
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On June 04 2012 15:49 Talionis wrote: Zero vs Guemchi next ^^ Zero's going to wipe the floor with him oh how do you know? haha | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
| ||
|
KristofferAG
Norway25712 Posts
Q - fbh vs hon_sin, yesterday we had the joy of interviewing players who hadn't a lot, hello honsin how are yo hon_sin - feels gud q - did you prepare stuff for interbiew? hon_sin - no I didn't q - why not hon_sin - I'm not 100% confident in my skills yet q - because you haven't shown much yet, but I think your record will get better if you do hon_sin - if I get more broadcast games, I'll get better q - then ask your coach to send more hon_sin - it's been 3 years since I've been progamer, to the coaches and staff, I'll do better now please trust in me (aw) | ||
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
PvProleague? | ||
|
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
I think TvT, even on such a big map, with great distance between expansions would be a very exciting spectacle if SCBW had crucial upgrades from SC2. That is, if SCBW had customizable hotkeys, automining, infinite unit selection, infinite structure selection, etc. aggressive play would be a lot more feasible. However, it's much easier to set up a tank line or a minefield than it is to attack one. So, in the absence of interface improvements it's natural that the game would devolve into a very long drawn out stalemate (neither player had the speed required to make aggressive movements effective, and so both players were forced to play passively). Some would argue that Siege Mode and Spider Mines are the culprit (thus "TvT" is very passive). However, I think this boring, drawn-out stalemate wasn't the consequence of the nature of Terran. Rather, it was a combination of a multitude of factors, and my focus would not be on the Terran units, but rather on the absurd distance between expansions, the players (who both seemed quite downtrodden--and not given to playing a fast-paced aggressive game), and especially the unnecessary mechanical difficulties still present in SCBW. The two major upgrades, in my mind, are automining and infinite building selection. Unless you've experienced SCBW at a high level, it's difficult to comprehend just how much of a balancing act is required to efficiently allocate actions between queuing new workers, sending workers to mine, and building new units, queuing each unit individually while panning the camera to the base and selecting individual factories. Just the necessity of panning the camera to create a production cycle or panning the camera to select individual workers and send them to mine makes an enormous difference. Let's say a player in SCBW spends 30% of their time and 50+% of their focus on panning the camera and constructing units, the same player in SC2 probably spends 10% of their time constructing units and 15% of their focus. The mechanical advantages afforded by the interface alone are sufficient to change the game completely. Not to mention other absolute game-changing features in SC2 like smart casting. SCBW pros playing a modded SCBW that is modded with these interface upgrades would be playing an entirely different game, and playstyles would look nothing like they do today. Interface upgrades play a huge role in the strategic evolution of the game, and SC2's interface is part of the reason why the game seems to have been 'figured out' so much faster than SCBW | ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
 | ||
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
| ||
|
KristofferAG
Norway25712 Posts
| ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On June 04 2012 16:00 KristofferAG wrote: Any time a Zerg goes over 2 bases in this season of PL I'm happy. Means no 2base hydra bust. Yeah, but that doesn't mean they can't go 3-bases hydra bust | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On June 04 2012 15:56 Failsafe wrote: I'd like to see this first TvT replayed with SC2 interface. Neither play was playing to their potential, definitely. But I think the game was so boring because TvT is a very mechanics-oriented game, and the map was huge. Not only that but the distance between player bases was huge, and even the distance between player expansions was huge. I think TvT, even on such a big map, with great distance between expansions would be a very exciting spectacle if SCBW had crucial upgrades from SC2. That is, if SCBW had customizable hotkeys, automining, infinite unit selection, infinite structure selection, etc. aggressive play would be a lot more feasible. However, it's much easier to set up a tank line or a minefield than it is to attack one. So, in the absence of interface improvements it's natural that the game would devolve into a very long drawn out stalemate (neither player had the speed required to make aggressive movements effective, and so both players were forced to play passively). Some would argue that Siege Mode and Spider Mines are the culprit (thus "TvT" is very passive). However, I think this boring, drawn-out stalemate wasn't the consequence of the nature of Terran. Rather, it was a combination of a multitude of factors, and my focus would not be on the Terran units, but rather on the absurd distance between expansions, the players (who both seemed quite downtrodden--and not given to playing a fast-paced aggressive game), and especially the unnecessary mechanical difficulties still present in SCBW. The two major upgrades, in my mind, are automining and infinite building selection. Unless you've experienced SCBW at a high level, it's difficult to comprehend just how much of a balancing act is required to efficiently allocate actions between queuing new workers, sending workers to mine, and building new units, queuing each unit individually while panning the camera to the base and selecting individual factories. Just the necessity of panning the camera to create a production cycle or panning the camera to select individual workers and send them to mine makes an enormous difference. Let's say a player in SCBW spends 30% of their time and 50+% of their focus on panning the camera and constructing units, the same player in SC2 probably spends 10% of their time constructing units and 15% of their focus. The mechanical advantages afforded by the interface alone are sufficient to change the game completely. Not to mention other absolute game-changing features in SC2 like smart casting. SCBW pros playing a modded SCBW that is modded with these interface upgrades would be playing an entirely different game, and playstyles would look nothing like they do today. Interface upgrades play a huge role in the strategic evolution of the game, and SC2's interface is part of the reason why the game seems to have been 'figured out' so much faster than SCBW Part of why BW TvT is the match up it is is the slower pacing, you can't do half the things you can in BW TvT with the pacing of SC2, high level BW TvT is much more entertaining because there is the ability for players to recover from near fatal damage with strategic placement and skill in BW is something that hasn't been recipricated in SC2 at all. See: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=145526 | ||
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
| ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
| ||
| ||
