|
United States33145 Posts
This is a post from Garimto's website, written on March 5th. Garimto has been playing the SC II Beta lately, and he was ranked highly the last time I checked.
Source : Garimto
It feels like Protoss and Zerg have established a power duo at the top.
It's a step up from the Protoss dominance early on, but it's still unfortunate that there's not many Terran players.
I think now, that ZvP is just a matter of who is the better player.
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play.
Multiple building selection means you don't need a godly left hand. You can just put everything on one key, and tab through the buildings to produce.
When you make buildings, you can order a bunch of workers to start make a building and only one of them will go follow your orders. If you're building a lot of buildings at once, you can just select 5~6 workers and tell them to build and they'll go about it smartly.
There's no worry about ordering workers to make a building and have it fail because you ran out of money, because you spend the money at the moment you order the building to be built. Of course, you get the money back if you cancel it.
By reducing manual tasks here and there, they try to make you focus on battles, build orders, and strategies.
Still, there are some problems with balance right now.
For example, there's PvP. PvP right now is one step away from being a total disaster. There's no way to stop 3 Warpgate zealots with an offensive pylon in the opponent's base. Your only counter is to do the same thing.
Also, Terran is a difficult race. Similar to SC1 in that way. They have to fight using a wide variety of units in and skills, and you have to manage a large amount of them at the same time.
Now that I think about it, even though I said the person who thinks faster has the advantage, it's still a nice to have quick hands anyway.
It's like playing TvP with 3 control groups of M&M, while you control a group of wraiths, EMP high templars, plant mines around the map, while still producing troops from your main. And then on top of that you have to focus fire your opponent's colossus with marauders.
You have to be able to do all of this during combat to be good at Terran. It's really hard to win as terran with simple strategies. As Protoss or Zerg (especially Zerg, as an extension from SC1), you can win a game just by playing a macro game with lots of troops. Brood Lords make the enemy's ground troops useless, and Hydralisks are specialized anti-air units. With Hydralisks defending the brood lords, you can play even long game without that much micro.
For protoss, they have an awesome ground unit called the Immortal, so they can just use those with some good storms, while the warp gates make producing troops so much easier, making it easy to play a macro game.
From what I've seen so far, I think this might be a difficult game for beginners. It's not a game like BW where you can win just by just blindly making a lot of units.
|
Thanks Wax, i love Garimto. Great blog
|
That's a really insightful blog there. I hadn't thought of sc2 as a "quicker thinker" game, but I suppose though the reduced redundancy of clicks, that's what it would have to become.
nice read, thx! 
|
Lolololol
By the end he makes it sound like bw is a game for noobs and SC2 is the hardcore one.
Very interesting, I expected him to be more critical, he didn't even really mention micro.
|
|
|
Thanks for the translation was an interesting read
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
I think it's funny how he uses bw names on SC2 units.
|
Cool, thanks yo!
I'm very eager to hear the koreans opinions on SC2. I you find more stuff like this, please translate!
|
Wow his Korean is really good - probably better than the average native speaker.
I am illiterate.
|
|
|
Awesome. I hope he obtains success from SC2.
|
|
|
"Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play."
I totally agree with this, strategy and brains will be the biggest decider in who will win a match, not to say BW wasn't like that but anyone with good micro could pull a 4pool without having a brain cell alive. now its going to be about who thinks more ahead of the other especially with the whole this unit counters this unit concept
|
United States2822 Posts
On March 06 2010 05:21 Wala.Revolution wrote:
Wow his Korean is really good - probably better than the average native speaker.
You confused Garimto with Grrrr...
|
God I love Garimto, thanks for this.
|
On March 06 2010 05:47 scintilliaSD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 05:21 Wala.Revolution wrote:
Wow his Korean is really good - probably better than the average native speaker. You confused Garimto with Grrrr...
oh my.
><
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol
|
United States4126 Posts
On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol
Yea, I thought that was one of the major complaints people had about the game O_o
|
On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol
It's coming from the perspective of one of the brightest minds in BW history someone who started to fall behind when peoples mechanics improved. From the era he reigned in towards the current one in BW it is mechanics (making units in this case) that made people better than him. I think it is from that perspective that he says 'mind' is winning games again.
|
Interesting, thanks for the translation
|
On March 06 2010 06:01 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol It's coming from the perspective of one of the brightest minds in BW history someone who started to fall behind when peoples mechanics improved. From the era he reigned in towards the current one in BW it is mechanics (making units in this case) that made people better than him. I think it is from that perspective that he says 'mind' is winning games again.
You know what? I can attest to that. My APM is very low (75-85 without spam) and I consistently beat 200APM players on SC2 by outsmarting them.
I actually agree with Garimto.
|
On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol
maybe to produce them, but I think he's talking about all the hard counters at the lower tiers
|
definitely a good read. He's pretty much correct about Terran at the moment.
|
Someone already tried his tech, Broodlord/Hydra and Immortal+Storm? On paper seems destructive.
As always Terran is the only true pro race :p
|
The stuff about PvP being broken makes me lol. PvP is the new ZvZ.
|
Really nice
Thx
I would like to play SC2 to 
|
On March 06 2010 06:01 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol It's coming from the perspective of one of the brightest minds in BW history someone who started to fall behind when peoples mechanics improved. From the era he reigned in towards the current one in BW it is mechanics (making units in this case) that made people better than him. I think it is from that perspective that he says 'mind' is winning games again.
Yo Naz that sounds familiar 
|
|
|
The write ups by foreigners have been much better so far. I credit translation and the fact that this site is the best for that
|
On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol
he's not saying macro is harder, he's saying it's harder to win with just pure macro. dunno how true that is of course, but that's what he's saying.
edit oh I missed the "and win" in your post nevermind....
|
On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
For example, there's PvP. PvP right now is one step away from being a total disaster. There's no way to stop 3 Warpgate zealots with an offensive pylon in the opponent's base. Your only counter is to do the same thing.
If Garimto, of ALL PEOPLE, says 3gate zealot rush is unblockable, then it must be
seriously garimto was like the king of zealots
|
something tells me garimto is not going to dominate the scene with his " mind wins ".
Obviously you start to win more when the game is simpler.
|
On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play.
Awesome quote. We should use this as default against all those "we want crappy AI and random bugs and tedious micro back!" arguments.
|
you can also try - starcraft 2 is easier so now you win against people who you didnt before and it has nothing to do with you thinking faster
|
On March 06 2010 05:37 zealing wrote:
"Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play."
I totally agree with this, strategy and brains will be the biggest decider in who will win a match, not to say BW wasn't like that but anyone with good micro could pull a 4pool without having a brain cell alive. now its going to be about who thinks more ahead of the other especially with the whole this unit counters this unit concept
Responding to this and anyone that says the quicker thinker or mind in general will beat out mechanics and faster hands is forgetting that SC1 was like that at the beginning too. As more optimal builds emerge creativity will make less of an impact and mechanics will become more important if things follow SC1's mold. Then as mechanics level out somewhat and play/builds have become thoroughly standardized creative thinking will let you standout again.
|
On March 06 2010 06:34 wintergt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play. Awesome quote. We should use this as default against all those "we want crappy AI and random bugs and tedious micro back!" arguments.
QFT
|
I only partially agree with the last statement; SCII has a lot of this-counters-this, which makes unit composition extremely important, but is (IMO) more heavily dependent on macro for beginners.
|
On March 06 2010 06:34 wintergt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play. Awesome quote. We should use this as default against all those "we want crappy AI and random bugs and tedious micro back!" arguments.
You would be supporting their argument with that. This is exactly what everyone says. The difficulty of the game is reduced from macro/micro/mind to just mind, which evens the playing field and lowers the games longevity due to more people being able to perform at the highest levels and thus speeding up the development of the strategic game.
|
great read, thanks for posting this
|
mind would matter if replays or discussions didn't exist. If someone truly is smarter than the pack replays will kill that advantage very quickly.
|
Thanks so much for the interview. Garimto is so awesome. I hope he becomes SC2's first Bonjwa.
|
GARimto is a badass, I really enjoyed what he had to say
|
Very nice read, I'm curious to see what boxer thinks of the new terran, too bad he's on a pro-team still and won't be able to try out SC2 seriously unless they make a transition.
I think z and p just need a small bit of tuning and we will have our micro/macro/mind, where macro is the least difficult, but still very much needed (example being queens that stays at below 30 energy the entire game with only larva injects)
I think people's APM will come into effect more as they get used to the game, and we see 3-4 pronged attacks with medivac strike forces/warp ins/nydus worms.
|
On March 06 2010 06:45 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 06:34 wintergt wrote:On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play. Awesome quote. We should use this as default against all those "we want crappy AI and random bugs and tedious micro back!" arguments. You would be supporting their argument with that. This is exactly what everyone says. The difficulty of the game is reduced from macro/micro/mind to just mind, which evens the playing field and lowers the games longevity due to more people being able to perform at the highest levels and thus speeding up the development of the strategic game.
Eh no micro/macro is not gone at all, if you watch streams of platinum players and others you can tell very quickly by their speed of clicking and their micro and unit control that there is a skill gap there. What he is saying is that there is more emphasis on quickly assessing a situation, thinking on your feet and making strategic decisions on the fly without having to rely on scarabs that may or may not bug out or near glitching the game to stack your muta's and stuff.
|
|
|
nice analysis of SC2 by gosu of SC1 but notice that its a beta; the game will improve a lot by patches and style play, thx for translate
|
On March 06 2010 06:49 Audiohelper123 wrote:
mind would matter if replays or discussions didn't exist. If someone truly is smarter than the pack replays will kill that advantage very quickly.
This is just unbelievably stupid. Your statement is equivalent to saying you could simply go over every chess game Kasparov has ever played and then go out and beat him. "Talking" and "looking" are nothing compared to "doing". A live game is just that, LIVE. Things are going to happen that you've never seen before, and they're going to happen in real time.
|
Thanks for the translation, that was a good read
|
On March 06 2010 09:32 wintergt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 06:45 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On March 06 2010 06:34 wintergt wrote:On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play. Awesome quote. We should use this as default against all those "we want crappy AI and random bugs and tedious micro back!" arguments. You would be supporting their argument with that. This is exactly what everyone says. The difficulty of the game is reduced from macro/micro/mind to just mind, which evens the playing field and lowers the games longevity due to more people being able to perform at the highest levels and thus speeding up the development of the strategic game. Eh no micro/macro is not gone at all, if you watch streams of platinum players and others you can tell very quickly by their speed of clicking and their micro and unit control that there is a skill gap there. What he is saying is that there is more emphasis on quickly assessing a situation, thinking on your feet and making strategic decisions on the fly without having to rely on scarabs that may or may not bug out or near glitching the game to stack your muta's and stuff.
You're semi-missing Nazgul's point, and it's a very important concern that he brings up.
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
That was a really awesome interview. Thanks!
|
All the micro crazies should listen to the latest beta podcast, and remember how SC1 evolved.
|
I don't think it's surprising to see Garimto embrace the removal of some of the macro factors in SC2. Back when he was playing it was still all about strategy and different micro.
|
On March 06 2010 10:12 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 06:49 Audiohelper123 wrote:
mind would matter if replays or discussions didn't exist. If someone truly is smarter than the pack replays will kill that advantage very quickly. This is just unbelievably stupid. Your statement is equivalent to saying you could simply go over every chess game Kasparov has ever played and then go out and beat him. "Talking" and "looking" are nothing compared to "doing". A live game is just that, LIVE. Things are going to happen that you've never seen before, and they're going to happen in real time.
He does have a point though. Boxer once mentioned that the strategic element of SC1 was largely killed by replays. Even if people could see VODs through TV, the exact timings wouldn't be clear to watchers. With replays, his entire game plan is exposed.
It's different from chess because a strategy is easily defendable if analyzed. If a progamer saw the exact build order of one of Boxer's cheese strategies, it'd be trivial to block.
|
On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol
I thought the exact same thing. It seems like SC2 is much more of a macro game (not that SC isn't), and that ingenuity and unit/map control have taken a backseat.
|
Good read! I totally agree, with macro made easier it comes down more to strategy/decision making than being able to click 12 barracks really fast.
Just making units and winning happens alot in SC2 now because people have no real grasp of timings yet. This will change once BOs and timings become more standardised.
|
"It's not a game like BW where you can win just by just blindly making a lot of units."
"As Protoss or Zerg (especially Zerg, as an extension from SC1), you can win a game just by playing a macro game with lots of troops."
mmmm, a little contradictory no?
|
On March 06 2010 06:45 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 06:34 wintergt wrote:On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play. Awesome quote. We should use this as default against all those "we want crappy AI and random bugs and tedious micro back!" arguments. You would be supporting their argument with that. This is exactly what everyone says. The difficulty of the game is reduced from macro/micro/mind to just mind, which evens the playing field and lowers the games longevity due to more people being able to perform at the highest levels and thus speeding up the development of the strategic game.
Games like Chess and Go are all mind games, but it can take YEARS to get to high level play.
|
On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol
I think the idea is that because it is much easier to make lots of units in sc2, you will no longer be able to win as much by just making lots of units as your opponent will most likely be able to keep up with you in macro (except at very low levels of play). Therefore you have to do something in addition to making lots of units to win (maybe playing a little bit greedier or pulling some good harassment or outmanuevering your opponent etc).
|
Garimto's opinions should be listened to 
|
Garimto's blog = my SCII Bible
|
Very interesting perspective and I mostly agree.
After looking at some of imba.adolf replays, I noticed that 9 out of 10 times, the two sides made approximately the same number of units and had more or less perfect macro YET he still manages to get a good 70-80% win ratio by always making two pronged attacks where as the enemy only blobbed their units. In many fights, he lost the bigger fight but won the smaller often more important ones like a sneaky 3 reaper attack on the main base while the enemy was entirely preoccupied with fighting in the middle of the map.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
well atleast he's being useful rather than making the side wall of my room shake with moaning sounds keeping me awake
|
On March 06 2010 13:40 Failsafe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 09:32 wintergt wrote:On March 06 2010 06:45 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On March 06 2010 06:34 wintergt wrote:On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play. Awesome quote. We should use this as default against all those "we want crappy AI and random bugs and tedious micro back!" arguments. You would be supporting their argument with that. This is exactly what everyone says. The difficulty of the game is reduced from macro/micro/mind to just mind, which evens the playing field and lowers the games longevity due to more people being able to perform at the highest levels and thus speeding up the development of the strategic game. Eh no micro/macro is not gone at all, if you watch streams of platinum players and others you can tell very quickly by their speed of clicking and their micro and unit control that there is a skill gap there. What he is saying is that there is more emphasis on quickly assessing a situation, thinking on your feet and making strategic decisions on the fly without having to rely on scarabs that may or may not bug out or near glitching the game to stack your muta's and stuff. You're semi-missing Nazgul's point, and it's a very important concern that he brings up.
I know what he means I just think it is wrong. With that kind of reasoning, if everyone watches Kasparov chess games ("replays"), then everyone will be at the highest levels of play? Obviously false. And note that chess is 100% mind while sc2 is still a lot about macro and micro. The 1a blob users will get slaughtered by those that use micro to form concaves, retreat, position different units, etc.
|
8748 Posts
It seems incredibly obvious to me that the "mind vs mechanics" assessment is going to be fruitless for a new game. I have yet to hear a convincing reason to give any value to these assessments. The main argument to throw them out is that nobody has a good mind or good mechanics for a game that they've practiced so little. The standards for BW practice are something like 12+ months of full-time practice after joining a pro team. At the moment, everyone is doing short-sighted and crude strategies with poor execution. With data like that, no assessment is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so Blizzard implemented MBS and the newbie-friendly interface and GARIMTO still says that Starcraft II might be a game that's harder for beginners than Starcraft I...
|
On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
From what I've seen so far, I think this might be a difficult game for beginners. It's not a game like BW where you can win just by just blindly making a lot of units.
My god...
Win by just blindly making a lot of units?
lol
|
On March 06 2010 21:07 Rekrul wrote:
well atleast he's being useful rather than making the side wall of my room shake with moaning sounds keeping me awake hahaha. Garimto likes to get down?
|
Calgary25969 Posts
On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol
Seriously. And my experience is once someone has a bigger army than you, it's way harder to come back through tactics.
|
It sounds like Garimto still clearly has a chip on his shoulder about getting passed up by players with good mechanics in SC. A game that requires speed/technique and thinking/creativity is obviously better than one that requires just one of those, or heavily favors one over the other.
Some of his comments come off like one of those newbies who make snide comments about SC because you have to be fast and a strong multitasker. I doubt he's going to be a top player in SC2 and will no doubt find flaws in the game to explain why when he inevitably gets passed up by people once builds and strategies are refined to a point where mechanics are just as important again.
He's innovative and creative but I think it's fair to say he's far from a complete player
|
On March 07 2010 02:40 floor exercise wrote:
It sounds like Garimto still clearly has a chip on his shoulder about getting passed up by players with good mechanics in SC. A game that requires speed/technique and thinking/creativity is obviously better than one that requires just one of those, or heavily favors one over the other.
Some of his comments come off like one of those newbies who make snide comments about SC because you have to be fast and a strong multitasker. I doubt he's going to be a top player in SC2 and will no doubt find flaws in the game to explain why when he inevitably gets passed up by people once builds and strategies are refined to a point where mechanics are just as important again.
He's innovative and creative but I think it's fair to say he's far from a complete player
part of this is because of the fucking horrible AI. Why do you think people need to practice 12-16 hrs a day of bw? Its to overcome the shit pathing and AI. Things dont build on you, tons of crappy stuff happens all the time. Units running into each other then going backwards. Its frustrating to just thinking about it
|
On March 06 2010 21:07 Rekrul wrote:
well atleast he's being useful rather than making the side wall of my room shake with moaning sounds keeping me awake
o.o ?
|
On March 07 2010 02:50 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2010 02:40 floor exercise wrote:
It sounds like Garimto still clearly has a chip on his shoulder about getting passed up by players with good mechanics in SC. A game that requires speed/technique and thinking/creativity is obviously better than one that requires just one of those, or heavily favors one over the other.
Some of his comments come off like one of those newbies who make snide comments about SC because you have to be fast and a strong multitasker. I doubt he's going to be a top player in SC2 and will no doubt find flaws in the game to explain why when he inevitably gets passed up by people once builds and strategies are refined to a point where mechanics are just as important again.
He's innovative and creative but I think it's fair to say he's far from a complete player part of this is because of the fucking horrible AI. Why do you think people need to practice 12-16 hrs a day of bw? Its to overcome the shit pathing and AI. Things dont build on you, tons of crappy stuff happens all the time. Units running into each other then going backwards. Its frustrating to just thinking about it
SC was never perfect I just take exception with him talking as if SC2 is superior on the basis that he can compete in it (so far)
I like SC2 and am enjoying it but the ladder is full of people who play and excel at every RTS game when it's new and then no longer compete/give up when the competition becomes more fierce. It's a little too much self-congratulation by Garimto at this point.
|
I play Terran-only since ~3 days and I have about 120 Games with about 60% wins and the only thing annoying are the Maps. I get a Fast-Exe directly after 1 Rax on the Maps where it's possible (therefore, I don't like the Maps Desert Oasis, Kulas Ravine and Scrap Station, because they make FEing almost impossible if the opponent doesn't get a FE himself) and play defensively.
It still very good for Terran to play defensively, because of good defensive stuctures, the ability of the SCV's to repair Buildings/certain Units and Tanks of course. Also, having 2 Orbital Command Centres very early will give you a huge advantage in the long run.
The Problem against Zerg is when Zerg takes an early expansion on Maps where you can't really go get a FE as a Terran. It's also very hard to apply early aggression against a FEing Zerg. I've tried getting up an offensive Bunker and it doesn't work at all and if you wan't to play 1base against a 2base Zerg, you basically need to have perfect timing and also a bit of luck. It's not impossible to win against a FEing Zerg with just 1 base, but I feel like it's harder than necessary. But as written above - that's mostly a Map-related problem.
Against Protoss, the Problems are also Map-related. Protoss get's so many benefits from "complex" Maps because they can build an offensive Pylon and rush you and you have to have a SCV running around searching for Pylons on spots it actually easier to get to for your opponent. What I do is just get up several Depots all over the Map, which is a bit annoying if they can easily be kicked be your opponent.
It's also much easier for the Protoss to play aggressive, so if you're not able to make a Fast-Exe, you have to sit around your base anyways defending against possible DT's, hidden-pylon-rushes or stuff like that.
One thing about PvT that's not Map-related but kinda annoys me is the Colossus: They just melt Bio within seconds, but Immortals are very good against Tanks, then, you have to watch out against Void-Ray-rushes, DT's, warp-in's etc. so it's so hard to get the right Unit-Composition up. FastExing against P mostly works and you can hold off rushes if you scout offensive pylons and scan/scout their Unit-composition. But even after your Exe more than paid off, he can just rush you with collossus/Immortals/Zealots which completely negate good Building-Placement and melt the units you basically need if you want to have a chance against early rushes or some kind of cheese.
It's like NightElves in WC3. Saying they're imba wouldn't be quite accurate, it's just that they have so many BO's they can choose from, but the opponent has to counter them in very specific ways. P has just game-control right away and you basically have to guess what BO they're gonna choose right from the start.
Say you're FEing:
- Against Hidden-Pylons you have to get up a Bunker, so you basically always have to get up a Bunker, because you can't scan/scout the whole map and be sure that the P isn't rushing. I mean - even a Pylon that's not too near your base can make the reinforcement-distance for P so short, that one huge advantage when playing defensively (faster reinforcements) is negated.
- when you see a Robo, Protoss can choose from several Units, that are countered by very different Unit's, that require a different BO: You want to get up Turrets against Prisms and Observers. Bio against Immortals and more Mech against Collossus. Also, you should get a rather fast Starport with Addon for detection against DT's.
- You basically need an as fast as possible Ghost, because you need the EMP, which require A LOT of Gas, which is hard to get when FE'ing or when you wanna have some Marauders or any kind of mech/air-Units.
It's just that hard-counter-system which really works against Terran in this Matchup and some incredibly bad Maps... But I still haven't used Thor that much against P, so maybe he works against Immo+Zealots+Collo.
|
On March 07 2010 03:22 kickinhead wrote:
I play Terran-only since ~3 days and I have about 120 Games with about 60% wins and the only thing annoying are the Maps. I get a Fast-Exe directly after 1 Rax on the Maps where it's possible (therefore, I don't like the Maps Desert Oasis, Kulas Ravine and Scrap Station, because they make FEing almost impossible if the opponent doesn't get a FE himself) and play defensively.
It still very good for Terran to play defensively, because of good defensive stuctures, the ability of the SCV's to repair Buildings/certain Units and Tanks of course. Also, having 2 Orbital Command Centres very early will give you a huge advantage in the long run.
The Problem against Zerg is when Zerg takes an early expansion on Maps where you can't really go get a FE as a Terran. It's also very hard to apply early aggression against a FEing Zerg. I've tried getting up an offensive Bunker and it doesn't work at all and if you wan't to play 1base against a 2base Zerg, you basically need to have perfect timing and also a bit of luck. It's not impossible to win against a FEing Zerg with just 1 base, but I feel like it's harder than necessary. But as written above - that's mostly a Map-related problem.
Against Protoss, the Problems are also Map-related. Protoss get's so many benefits from "complex" Maps because they can build an offensive Pylon and rush you and you have to have a SCV running around searching for Pylons on spots it actually easier to get to for your opponent. What I do is just get up several Depots all over the Map, which is a bit annoying if they can easily be kicked be your opponent.
It's also much easier for the Protoss to play aggressive, so if you're not able to make a Fast-Exe, you have to sit around your base anyways defending against possible DT's, hidden-pylon-rushes or stuff like that.
One thing about PvT that's not Map-related but kinda annoys me is the Colossus: They just melt Bio within seconds, but Immortals are very good against Tanks, then, you have to watch out against Void-Ray-rushes, DT's, warp-in's etc. so it's so hard to get the right Unit-Composition up. FastExing against P mostly works and you can hold off rushes if you scout offensive pylons and scan/scout their Unit-composition. But even after your Exe more than paid off, he can just rush you with collossus/Immortals/Zealots which completely negate good Building-Placement and melt the units you basically need if you want to have a chance against early rushes or some kind of cheese.
It's like NightElves in WC3. Saying they're imba wouldn't be quite accurate, it's just that they have so many BO's they can choose from, but the opponent has to counter them in very specific ways. P has just game-control right away and you basically have to guess what BO they're gonna choose right from the start.
Say you're FEing:
- Against Hidden-Pylons you have to get up a Bunker, so you basically always have to get up a Bunker, because you can't scan/scout the whole map and be sure that the P isn't rushing. I mean - even a Pylon that's not too near your base can make the reinforcement-distance for P so short, that one huge advantage when playing defensively (faster reinforcements) is negated.
- when you see a Robo, Protoss can choose from several Units, that are countered by very different Unit's, that require a different BO: You want to get up Turrets against Prisms and Observers. Bio against Immortals and more Mech against Collossus. Also, you should get a rather fast Starport with Addon for detection against DT's.
- You basically need an as fast as possible Ghost, because you need the EMP, which require A LOT of Gas, which is hard to get when FE'ing or when you wanna have some Marauders or any kind of mech/air-Units.
It's just that hard-counter-system which really works against Terran in this Matchup and some incredibly bad Maps... But I still haven't used Thor that much against P, so maybe he works against Immo+Zealots+Collo.
i think the hard counter system is pretty aids for terran too especially considering that a hard counter system is gonna favour the race that has observers and can see everything youre doing, but if you do things right you really get a nice rewarding win !
|
I definitely agree with everything he said. Z & P are both very good right now, and while terran is also a strong race, it takes way more management to play compared to streamlined Z & P mechanics.
|
On March 06 2010 06:45 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 06:34 wintergt wrote:On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play. Awesome quote. We should use this as default against all those "we want crappy AI and random bugs and tedious micro back!" arguments. You would be supporting their argument with that. This is exactly what everyone says. The difficulty of the game is reduced from macro/micro/mind to just mind, which evens the playing field and lowers the games longevity due to more people being able to perform at the highest levels and thus speeding up the development of the strategic game.
You got a point...
What shock me a bit in Garimto say. It's this bad relation of sc2 is harder coze sc1 you can win by just making a lot of unit.
A game is as hard as the opponent you're playing against right? I mean tetris is very simple game, well play it on internet against korean, it's a new level of difficulty.
While it's true that at sc2, you should better have the RIGHT unit instead of more, if you remove all the micro and macro aspect, it is more mind game. I think it is just on commercial purpose, blizzard wants to get all w3 players it's obvious.
You play w3, are you really gonna switch to sc2 if ever they didn't make it simpler to handle?
Of course not...Because the gap between sc and w3 players would be too huge, while now, everybody almost starts ground zero.
I think this is the only reason, you need a game easy friendly, so you'll make more money. This is what give us technology in this field present day. I see sc2 as a new game for w3 players really, they are all gonna be very happy, but for us it's nowhere we expected.
It has been the same with quake 3, this generation online-game is over, you'll never experience games such as bw and q3 ever again, we have to accept it, or you agree to this Disneyland new age or you should better do something else
as me, i'm not interested, i'm fine with bw i'll stick to it until something better comes up even if it means never.
|
On March 06 2010 23:42 wintergt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2010 13:40 Failsafe wrote:On March 06 2010 09:32 wintergt wrote:On March 06 2010 06:45 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On March 06 2010 06:34 wintergt wrote:On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play. Awesome quote. We should use this as default against all those "we want crappy AI and random bugs and tedious micro back!" arguments. You would be supporting their argument with that. This is exactly what everyone says. The difficulty of the game is reduced from macro/micro/mind to just mind, which evens the playing field and lowers the games longevity due to more people being able to perform at the highest levels and thus speeding up the development of the strategic game. Eh no micro/macro is not gone at all, if you watch streams of platinum players and others you can tell very quickly by their speed of clicking and their micro and unit control that there is a skill gap there. What he is saying is that there is more emphasis on quickly assessing a situation, thinking on your feet and making strategic decisions on the fly without having to rely on scarabs that may or may not bug out or near glitching the game to stack your muta's and stuff. You're semi-missing Nazgul's point, and it's a very important concern that he brings up. I know what he means I just think it is wrong. With that kind of reasoning, if everyone watches Kasparov chess games ("replays"), then everyone will be at the highest levels of play? Obviously false. And note that chess is 100% mind while sc2 is still a lot about macro and micro. The 1a blob users will get slaughtered by those that use micro to form concaves, retreat, position different units, etc.
I guess a lot of it comes down to what we want to define as the mental aspect of the game.
I think what is being argued is simply this: For a strategy to be effective, it has to have a kernel of creativity, and then it must be refined to a razor's edge through repetition and analysis. Without replays, this process happens in very small communities, such as clans or professional teams, or even at the individual level. A player can develop his own rogue strategy and without replays it is difficult or impossible for any other player to peer inside of the "black box" to see exactly how the trick is performed. So each player must either develop the same trick, or different tricks to deal with this trick. The player who has the best bag of tricks has a huge advantage. Certainly this is not the only way to get an advantage but it is one very good way.
When replays are readily available, the mechanics are no longer hidden. Any player can view a replay and see not only how and why they lost, but they can even watch the reposted replays of strategies they have never even encountered personally, and either adopt them or adapt to them based on that information. A good strategy is still a good strategy, and a good strategy is still an advantage, but one need not be a great strategist to employ another person's strategy. So the game becomes less about who can develop the best strategies and more about who can best execute a good strategy, regardless of the source.
At least, I think that is what is being argued.
|
I think if his blog was anonymous so that nobody knew it was Garimto who wrote it, everyone would suddenly see how poor quality it really is.
What analyses is this? Toss now has a cool unit named Immortal - they can just mass those and storm and win! Less clicks equals more strategy! In BW you could just mass units and win, as opposed to SC2 Zerg, with which you can just mass units and win! Assertions with no backing, logically inconsistent, no coherent arguments, just semi-drunk ranting. Really, is this the best a strategic innovator can do?
Seriously, try it. Ask an experienced player who hasn't seen this thread to comment on the content of the blog without telling him it's Garimto. He sounds like a clueless noob. Nazgul is bending over backwards to make his arguments stick - dude, let it go, Garimto is great and all, but this blog entry is crap. Compare it to the depth of arguments and effort put into articles by other, less experienced players.
Thanks for the translation - this was a disappointment.
|
On March 06 2010 05:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
the last line has me scratching my head... UHHHH it is WAY easier to "just make lots of units" in SC2 and win than it was/is in SCBW lol
I didn't read most of the thread, but I think this is just a result of nobody know how to play SC2 well. Since nobody really knows what strategies to do, the person who can outmacro the other player will win most of the time. BW was much more like this when it first came out, too. I mean, imagine someone trying to 3 gate rush a la garimto in modern BW. They'd get stomped. But in the early days he was able to just outmacro/micro and not have to use more advanced strategy.
|
10387 Posts
On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
From what I've seen so far, I think this might be a difficult game for beginners. It's not a game like BW where you can win just by just blindly making a lot of units.
I find this quote to be highly ignorant and insulting. I'm disappointed by Garimto
|
my friend plays pretty much a very straightforward macro game with protoss, add sentries to that with force field and guardian shield... and he wins quite a bit, against people he could have never ever won on broodwar....
I mean he even beat artosis today and he was never even any remotely close to me... I really don't see SC2 as mind games so far :/
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 07 2010 09:38 Fayth wrote:
my friend plays pretty much a very straightforward macro game with protoss, add sentries to that with force field and guardian shield... and he wins quite a bit, against people he could have never ever won on broodwar....
I mean he even beat artosis today and he was never even any remotely close to me... I really don't see SC2 as mind games so far :/
That has arguably to do with the fact that many players have 10+ years of experience with SC1, and nobody other than CowGoMoo and David Kim have more than a month of experience with SC2.
Artosis has been playing SC1 since basically it's release, and understands the game at a level that few people in the world do. Nobody understands SC2 at that level yet. Comparing his SC1 ability to his SC2 ability is meaningless.
|
Thanks for the translation! Even when I disagree with some facts he has his point.
|
Really really nice insight.
|
gosh look at this rookie swarm at sc2 forums
|
On March 07 2010 08:42 Doctorasul wrote:
I think if his blog was anonymous so that nobody knew it was Garimto who wrote it, everyone would suddenly see how poor quality it really is.
What analyses is this? Toss now has a cool unit named Immortal - they can just mass those and storm and win! Less clicks equals more strategy! In BW you could just mass units and win, as opposed to SC2 Zerg, with which you can just mass units and win! Assertions with no backing, logically inconsistent, no coherent arguments, just semi-drunk ranting. Really, is this the best a strategic innovator can do?
Seriously, try it. Ask an experienced player who hasn't seen this thread to comment on the content of the blog without telling him it's Garimto. He sounds like a clueless noob. Nazgul is bending over backwards to make his arguments stick - dude, let it go, Garimto is great and all, but this blog entry is crap. Compare it to the depth of arguments and effort put into articles by other, less experienced players.
Thanks for the translation - this was a disappointment.
Hey dick, it's a blog entry. Not some analytical article for a hardcore SC site. The majority of people reading it are fans of Garimto first and fans of SC second. So as a blog entry it's perfectly appropriate level of analysis.
User was warned for this post.
|
On March 09 2010 21:29 Straylight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2010 08:42 Doctorasul wrote:
I think if his blog was anonymous so that nobody knew it was Garimto who wrote it, everyone would suddenly see how poor quality it really is.
What analyses is this? Toss now has a cool unit named Immortal - they can just mass those and storm and win! Less clicks equals more strategy! In BW you could just mass units and win, as opposed to SC2 Zerg, with which you can just mass units and win! Assertions with no backing, logically inconsistent, no coherent arguments, just semi-drunk ranting. Really, is this the best a strategic innovator can do?
Seriously, try it. Ask an experienced player who hasn't seen this thread to comment on the content of the blog without telling him it's Garimto. He sounds like a clueless noob. Nazgul is bending over backwards to make his arguments stick - dude, let it go, Garimto is great and all, but this blog entry is crap. Compare it to the depth of arguments and effort put into articles by other, less experienced players.
Thanks for the translation - this was a disappointment. Hey dick, it's a blog entry. Not some analytical article for a hardcore SC site. The majority of people reading it are fans of Garimto first and fans of SC second. So as a blog entry it's perfectly appropriate level of analysis.
Disclaimer: I am a bad SC1 player, and my APM is quite low, so im sorry if im wrong, feel free to tell me if u disagree with what im saying, and especially I apologize from Garimto if i misunderstood what he meant.
1. I can hardly imagine somebody being a fan of Garimto, and not knowing SCBW...
2. Also my first thoughts on this was, that "its just like a comercial". But I think he may have meant that SCBW amateur games were decided by "who can macro better", because it took so high APM to macro, that if u spent your time micoring u could have lost, even against an A-moving opponent, 'cause he was training reinforcements in the meantime...
3. Also watching TSL for example, even top foreigner players (or sometimes even Korean pros) have like 1000+ minerals after a battle. And by simplifying the macro in SC2 that may change...
Anyway, thats what i think Garimto meant.
|
SC2 is new so atm there are two kind of players that are *good*:
To put it simple:
The ones that *get* the game really fast, which are just ahead of the pack due to "seeing" how this game should be played way faster than others.
The ones that have really high apm to make even *rather* unsound decisions work better than they should.
If you suck at both of these, you will have a hard time until someone figures out the game for you and final patches make it stable. If you don't do truly retarded stuff you can get away with many things if your fast enough, if you do really smart stuff you can get away with lacking control... AT THE MOMENT.
Remember when Replays came out in SC/BW? Total scrubs improved like tenfold in a matter of days/weeks due to having really good developed strategies available to just copy them whiteout even needing to read and imagine/understand them to use them in an efficient way. That’s not the case in SC2 right now because there are not that many really developed/fine tuned strategies/builds and it's hard to tell which one actually is a truly good one (ok, for PvP it's probably easy atm  ).
I mean just look at some builds Platin/Gold players still actually do. Right now, compared to the large pack, these are the *good* players.
I yesterday played a guy that did: Fast 2 Hatch/2 Queen/high econ into Speedlings into Roach into Muta into Hydra with dual Evo and no expansion O_o. There is no way in hell he could ever support this and a little thinking/understanding would have told him that he could never support this... It would also have told him that 1 Base Muta isn't good because he would never get a serious amount of them...
The map made the game (look) closer than it should have been (I was never in danger to actually losing but I couldn't just roflstomp him because of the long way to his base) and I probably should have expanded a little earlier/defended my expansion attempts instead of just cancelling the morphing hatches and going on the offensive. In the end I had 2 fresh expo's, the bigger army (in fact I had an army and he not anymore ) and still a few minerals in my main while he was completely mined out.
|
On March 06 2010 05:13 Waxangel wrote:
Starcraft II is a game where the person who thinks faster wins, not the person who clicks faster. They cut down on a lot of the repetitive macro, and offered a lot of solutions through counters and thoughtful play.
I think a lot of people are reading into this in a way that wasn't intended. This needs to read in conjunction with his later point.
By reducing manual tasks here and there, they try to make you focus on battles, build orders, and strategies.
To fully understand this point, a good example would be the following bow and arrow contests:
+ Show Spoiler +(note: drawing a bowstring requires strength, aiming at a target requires accuracy)
Contest 1 (aka SC):
You have 1 minute to hit 30 stationary targets. That means you have 2 seconds per target.
Contest 2 (aka SC2):
You have 1 minute to hit 6 moving targets. That means you have 10 seconds per target.
The significant changes to note when going from Contest 1 to Contest 2 are:
1. You can spend more time per shot
2. You require additional accuracy and shots are harder to predict
3. You require less strength as there are less shots to make
These changes will result in:
1. Higher accuracy requirements
2. Higher average level of accuracy among contestants
3. Lower strength requirements
4. Lower average level of strength among contestants
However it would be a fallacy to conclude that this lowers the overall skill requirements. Accuracy is not absent in Contest 1 and arm strength is not absent in Contest 2, and both are even very important for each contest.
Yet it is true that the Contests 1 rewards contestants who focus on strength over accuracy where Contest 2 rewards players who focus on accuracy over strength.
What does this mean for competition?
It means that each single shot (event) becomes much more important. The winner will not be decided by giving each contestant a large number of small events to manage. Rather it will be decided by how well each contestant is able to manage all the minor aspects of the fewer, more significant events.
This may be part of the reason why players are feeling like SC2 hinges much more heavily on single battles.
Finally, considering Garimto's other controversial statement:
From what I've seen so far, I think this might be a difficult game for beginners. It's not a game like BW where you can win just by just blindly making a lot of units.
I believe that what was he intended to communicate was this:
"From what I've seen so far, I think [SC2 right now, as it is beginning] might be a difficult game for beginners [who are new to the SC scene]. It's not a game like BW [was in the beginning] where you can win by just blindly making a lot of units [like you could at the beginning of BW before anyone knew much about the game]."
I believe that he's making a statement NOT only about the beginning of SC1 vs the beginning of SC2, but rather about the way a new player could approach SC1 in the beginning vs the way a new player (ie not a SC1 veteran) must approach SC2.
That's my take on it anyway.
|
I'm pretty sure Garimto is saying that because of the UI, managing macro is so much easier, everyone can make a lot of units and pump peons (rally = automine), putting the emphasis back on "mind vs. mind". Obviously, the blog is of his initial impressions, so that statement may turn out to be wrong. I tend to agree with him for this reason (although I don't have a beta key): In BW, making a lot of units turned out to be such an essential skill that a certain level of mechanics were required to be competitive, rather than in the days of Boxer and company, where creative strategies alone were capable of winning the day.
|
completely agree, zerg/toss strats are sooooo much easier to execute and playing terran leaves room for no mistakes, the terran push needs to be made more strong
|
On March 09 2010 21:50 Kuzmorgo wrote:
1. I can hardly imagine somebody being a fan of Garimto, and not knowing SCBW...
They do know SC, but they're more fans about Garimnto than SC.
Like fangirls crushing on Bisu probably show up to events more to see him than to watch the games. These are probably the majority of people reading Garimto's blog and aren't looking for high level analysis in it.
|
On March 07 2010 02:50 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2010 02:40 floor exercise wrote:
It sounds like Garimto still clearly has a chip on his shoulder about getting passed up by players with good mechanics in SC. A game that requires speed/technique and thinking/creativity is obviously better than one that requires just one of those, or heavily favors one over the other.
Some of his comments come off like one of those newbies who make snide comments about SC because you have to be fast and a strong multitasker. I doubt he's going to be a top player in SC2 and will no doubt find flaws in the game to explain why when he inevitably gets passed up by people once builds and strategies are refined to a point where mechanics are just as important again.
He's innovative and creative but I think it's fair to say he's far from a complete player part of this is because of the fucking horrible AI. Why do you think people need to practice 12-16 hrs a day of bw? Its to overcome the shit pathing and AI. Things dont build on you, tons of crappy stuff happens all the time. Units running into each other then going backwards. Its frustrating to just thinking about it
Have to agree with this. In fact, having played SC2B, it has become very hard for me to go back and play BW. The absolutely frustrating unit pathing in BW was like a subtle headache. You feel it for weeks or months or years but you never quite know how much it hurt until it goes away. SC2B for me was like a dose of ibuprofen. Now what I know what it is like to have units obey me instead of wandering all over the map, I can't ever go back.
|
On March 10 2010 05:26 EleanorRIgby wrote:
completely agree, zerg/toss strats are sooooo much easier to execute and playing terran leaves room for no mistakes, the terran push needs to be made more strong
That would make them too strong in the hands of skilled players. Terran will just be the pro race :D
|
On March 10 2010 07:39 Straylight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 21:50 Kuzmorgo wrote:
1. I can hardly imagine somebody being a fan of Garimto, and not knowing SCBW...
They do know SC, but they're more fans about Garimnto than SC. Like fangirls crushing on Bisu probably show up to events more to see him than to watch the games. These are probably the majority of people reading Garimto's blog and aren't looking for high level analysis in it.
He's Garimto, if you expect anyything else than deep analysis, you're stupid.
|
On March 07 2010 08:42 Doctorasul wrote:
I think if his blog was anonymous so that nobody knew it was Garimto who wrote it, everyone would suddenly see how poor quality it really is.
What analyses is this? Toss now has a cool unit named Immortal - they can just mass those and storm and win! Less clicks equals more strategy! In BW you could just mass units and win, as opposed to SC2 Zerg, with which you can just mass units and win! Assertions with no backing, logically inconsistent, no coherent arguments, just semi-drunk ranting. Really, is this the best a strategic innovator can do?
Seriously, try it. Ask an experienced player who hasn't seen this thread to comment on the content of the blog without telling him it's Garimto. He sounds like a clueless noob. Nazgul is bending over backwards to make his arguments stick - dude, let it go, Garimto is great and all, but this blog entry is crap. Compare it to the depth of arguments and effort put into articles by other, less experienced players.
Thanks for the translation - this was a disappointment.
I don't think it was a bad blog entry at all (it wasn't meant to be a college dissertation) and I have a sneaking feeling your main problem with his post is his conclusions (which run totally counter to the whining about MBS and automine which infested these forums for a good year and a half)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
