EPTOn February 08 2013 10:52 opterown wrote:
even if you exclude the ODT it's nothing like 80%
even if you exclude the ODT it's nothing like 80%
This would be it http://www.gomtv.net/records/playerInfo.gom?option=view&playerid=32468
[Code S] RO16 Group A 2013 GSL Season 1 - Page 136
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
slowbacontron
United States7722 Posts
This would be it http://www.gomtv.net/records/playerInfo.gom?option=view&playerid=32468 | ||
|
moochu
Australia374 Posts
On February 08 2013 09:03 furerkip wrote: Why do you want a more mechanically challenging game though? Is the purpose simply to be elitist or something? More mechanically difficult games don't really prove anything except for that people have to practice harder in the mechanics department than a game with easier mechanics. But why do you want to expand this department? From the way everyone seems to refer to BW (I myself never having played it), it seems like a very troublesome game to like. It was more like taking an exam every game you play because you want to remember so many things. But from my standpoint, that's like asking for a revert to the stone age in warfare because "it was harder to kill/maim people then." It took more skill to win a war in the stone age because it was hard to hurt people from what you guys say, whereas now, we don't have to worry about that, but only have to worry about the strategy involved in achieving XYZ goal. Or like taking a math test with no calculator. It's annoying if you don't know about the tricks involved in mental math; but does the fact I solved the question slower than you because of my lack of a calculator mean that I have worse algebra/arithmetic than you? Of course not, it simply has no meaning. From a spectator point of view, knowing how mechanically difficult bw was added a lot more wow factor to what the pros were doing. I remember trying to learn muta stacking for hours and sucking at it in a controlled environment on an ums map then jaedong goes and does it with 2 control groups along with the excellent macro and the pressure of playing on stage. Best's macro was so widely regarded because few could pump out so many units with such consistency in such a small time frame, i know it's not the perfect comparison but knowing that if i had as many warpgates as best and if hit z at the same time our zealot production would be almost equal, takes a certain sparkle away from the game. That skill gap between pros and amateurs just made them look super human to me. And by no means am i saying sc2 is easy, it's a different beast in it's own kind of way. | ||
|
ScienceRob
United States382 Posts
On February 08 2013 13:22 ZenithM wrote: Anyone else having trouble accessing VODs? I got a "Sorry, wrong access" error on all of them. They were working fine 2 days ago. Apparently I'm not alone: http://www.gomtv.net/forum/view.gom?topicid=228404&cid=0&kind=1 Same... I'm currently on G2 Bomber vs Taeja..... I want to watch... =\ | ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
| ||
|
Slackzftw
Germany361 Posts
| ||
|
Schelim
Austria11528 Posts
| ||
|
nvs.
Canada3609 Posts
| ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
On February 08 2013 09:03 furerkip wrote: Why do you want a more mechanically challenging game though? Is the purpose simply to be elitist or something? More mechanically difficult games don't really prove anything except for that people have to practice harder in the mechanics department than a game with easier mechanics. But why do you want to expand this department? From the way everyone seems to refer to BW (I myself never having played it), it seems like a very troublesome game to like. It was more like taking an exam every game you play because you want to remember so many things. But from my standpoint, that's like asking for a revert to the stone age in warfare because "it was harder to kill/maim people then." It took more skill to win a war in the stone age because it was hard to hurt people from what you guys say, whereas now, we don't have to worry about that, but only have to worry about the strategy involved in achieving XYZ goal. Or like taking a math test with no calculator. It's annoying if you don't know about the tricks involved in mental math; but does the fact I solved the question slower than you because of my lack of a calculator mean that I have worse algebra/arithmetic than you? Of course not, it simply has no meaning. Here's a quote I made for you: Mechanics are like puzzle pieces, the more there are, the more complicated the puzzle, but when they're all put together, it makes a beautiful picture. If the games more mechanically challenging it will reward the spectator the opportunity to see how wide the skill gap is between the two players. In BW, you could easily tell the difference between a newbie and a pro. I will use the 1a click + 2a click+ 3a click + 4a click as an example. A newbie will have delays in his 1a click + 2a click + 3a click + 4a click a for army movement. It will look like part of his army is moving (12 units per hotkey) and then another part of his army moves shortly after and then so on. Whereas, whenever somebody who has practiced this mechanic over and over and over attempts the 1a click + 2a click + 3a click + 4a click it will look like their entire army is moving at the same time because of how fast and flush they are pressing the keys. The same can be said about manually selecting workers to go to minerals (because BW doesn't allow for auto-worker rally). This mechanic gives us an opportunity to see how well the player can multitask throughout the game. Because if a player has no idle rallied workers then we know automatically that he's been moving them as they've been coming out the command center which gets really hard to do while you're trying to macro, micro, counter and mind game your opponent on top of a lot more other mechanics. From a spectator point of view, newbies watching the game will be like "wow, how's he doing that?" and that alone gives the spectator respect for the player because of how difficult the tactic is to pull off while manually macroing and microing. In a sense it is a very troublesome game but at the same time it's very rewarding for those who dedicate their lives to playing it because they will have big advantages over people who play it casually. In SC2, whenever a pro does something, it isn't really as exciting because newbies can emulate the same exact tactic because it really isn't that hard to do. Army movement is simple, Macro is simple, Micro is few and far in between because of 1a units. More mechanics basically means the player who practices the hardest will most likely be the winner because they have mastered them. In SC2, since there's a lack of mechanics, you often hear players "not practicing or playing as much" yet constantly still winning tournaments. This never happened in BW, because there were so many different mechanics involved. When all those mastered mechanics are displayed in a single game, you have no choice but to bask in awe at how amazing this player is for being able to utilize all of the mechanics with such swift precision. Here's another example: In BW, you couldn't select all buildings and rally click. You could only select one building at a time and rally it with F2, F3, or F4 of course. Watch how fast "Gorush" in the video below uses the "Mechanic" and how beautiful it looks because it's being done so fast. This individual mechanic right here, let's us know that he's far from a newb because this tactic is extremely hard for anyone to emulate at such a rapid pace. Hope this helps  | ||
| ||
