EPTAs they said in the dev chat though, just stick with it and keep your head up!
Really hard for newcomers. Worth it? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
As they said in the dev chat though, just stick with it and keep your head up! | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On March 25 2010 10:00 evilK wrote: many many letters In sc (and sc2 I presume) mechanics are actually pretty secondary to strategics, but vital nevertheless. Whether sc2 is worth playing is a tough question, because it's up to you, but you don't exactly HAVE to aim at becoming a very competitive player. I didn't really play 1v1s at all during my first couple of years as a sc player, instead I focused on 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, ffa, ums and all that, basically playing around with friends and having fun. There's also a great single player campaign, so in a way those things could be as good a starting off point as any, as they will improve your mechanics and knowledge of the game in the process. If you want to become a good player all it takes is practice. Although, 9 years ago blizzard patched the nifty little replay function into starcraft. That pretty much changed everything and you should use them if you really want to get good at sc2 (both by analyzing your own ones and for stealing awesome bo's and strategies from stronger players.) | ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
 ), but really play to enjoy, not to be good. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
The best way to improve at this moment, would be to mass game. Preferably find someone that is 5% better than you, and just play them over and over again trying new things. Liquipedia will be pretty nice by launch i'm sure, but until then you should check out Day[9]'s Daily show. GLHF | ||
|
Treeplant
United States214 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
I know is a quite personal and subjective question..saying it in another way, For someone who is 25, is a bit tired of videogames in general, doesn't have too much time and only want to play for "fun"..is really worth start playing from scratch a game like SC2? I mean, is really that satisfactory when you really know what your are doing (like, i would say, "real" tennis, which i is incredibly rewarding when you get better)? Or is it closer to the sensation of WoW, you know, when you stop playing, look back to all the time you have spend playing it and think "what a waste of time"? (i suposse that if you are in this forums you are not going to answer the second option, but it will be very interesting to me to understand why is different of WoW). In conclusion, i would like to know your motivations for playing something as demanding as SC seems to be, to make sure that this game is not another "WoWistic" time waster. Something closest to chess or a real sport, if you know what i mean, something you would not end regreting about being giving your time to it. I think the difference between SC and WoW is basically what you said in your tennis example - as you stop having to wrestle with the controls for every tiny aspect of the game, it will gradually become incredibly... immersive, I guess? Like, I'll play a really intense game and time doesn't flow at all in the same way as it does when not playing, everything else is just blocked out and your mind is focused only on playing. Once you and your opponent starts getting better there's also a ton of more "feedback", like you can start assuming that based on what you've shown, he'll do something, so you do something else or you only show something you want him to see etc. I think it becomes quite interesting~ To give an example: I played a game vs Nazgul, TvP on LT 9 vs 6. I'd made a sensor tower at the edge of my base and saw a bunch of units moving down towards his base, so I moved out to kill the rocks at my gold mineral expansion....... only to get ambushed by his entire army, because as soon as he exited the sensor tower radius, he'd doubled back up and waited out of sight. I think SC can be a frustrating game until you reach some base level of proficency, but then it quickly becomes very rewarding. EDIT: Oh and if you are starting now, as opposed to day 1, don't worry - I'm sure it'd be hard for anyone. On March 25 2010 11:28 Treeplant wrote: I'm really going to have to disagree with you here. I'm mainly a counter strike player, and I always wanted to get into SC BW, but never did because it was too damn hard. When I played, all I would do is enter korean hunter games (I swear the only thing on bnet) and try to 6 pool every game. If the first attack didn't gay a toss user, I would leave with shame. I was that bad. However, I saw SC2 as a whole new game, one that would give a chance to newcomers to RTS's. I think a lot of people anticipated SC2 in the same way. Since it has come out, I have been in plat league and have beaten some relatively known sc1 players. The game is just soooo much easier mechanically, which in my opinion is the main reason beginners couldn't compete with sc1 veterans. Anyone can remember some BO's and learn hard counters, but unless you have insane multitasking in SC1, you're not going to be able to execute. So yeah, SC2 has leveled the playing ground for RTS noobs to challenge SC1 players. So try not to start with the mentality that you are already too far behind RTS players. Well, let's be honest here, if you had 6 pooled every game and only played 3v3 (well, 2v2) in Sc2, you wouldn't get anywhere either  It seems like a large part just your mentality keeping you back. | ||
|
Yamoth
United States315 Posts
| ||
|
DigiFish21
Philippines6 Posts
..it can only be as demanding as you make it to be. - Is this beta just a bad site for startig to play? (due to too much good players, etc) ..i'm thinking there are just many good players at this point. Which is good for beta. And from somewhere i read, beta is not really for the 'beginners', it can be real harsh, not like in the retail version they have planned, where you'll be given the stuff in in chunks you can swallow.. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Treeplant
United States214 Posts
On March 25 2010 11:28 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think the difference between SC and WoW is basically what you said in your tennis example - as you stop having to wrestle with the controls for every tiny aspect of the game, it will gradually become incredibly... immersive, I guess? Like, I'll play a really intense game and time doesn't flow at all in the same way as it does when not playing, everything else is just blocked out and your mind is focused only on playing. Once you and your opponent starts getting better there's also a ton of more "feedback", like you can start assuming that based on what you've shown, he'll do something, so you do something else or you only show something you want him to see etc. I think it becomes quite interesting~ To give an example: I played a game vs Nazgul, TvP on LT 9 vs 6. I'd made a sensor tower at the edge of my base and saw a bunch of units moving down towards his base, so I moved out to kill the rocks at my gold mineral expansion....... only to get ambushed by his entire army, because as soon as he exited the sensor tower radius, he'd doubled back up and waited out of sight. I think SC can be a frustrating game until you reach some base level of proficency, but then it quickly becomes very rewarding. I would also like to note that SC has a huge learning advantage (not sure how to word that) in that you have an almost unlimited pool of skilled players to play against. It is no secret that the best way to get good at anything competitive is to play against the best competition. ICCUP and SC2's ladder gives you the privilege of playing someone better than you whenever you want, allowing you to improve quickly with effort. Many other competitive games like Counter Strike are very network heavy, as the only way to contact the best players is if you have the right connections. With ICCUP and SC2's ladder you have access to those top players if you can prove you compete against them. So at least with SC, if you have serious dedication, you can improve much more quickly than other games. Nothing is more frustrating than wanting to improve, but being forced to stick playing against bad players (which will eventually make you worse) due to lack of connections. Well, let's be honest here, if you had 6 pooled every game and only played 3v3 (well, 2v2) in Sc2, you wouldn't get anywhere either It seems like a large part just your mentality keeping you back.This may be true, but even now with my SC2 RTS experience, I would never imagine trying to competitive in a game that has been perfected for over 10 years. Maybe with some heavy dedication I could get to D+, but I wouldn't see myself going any further than that. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 25 2010 11:39 D10 wrote: Play 2v2's until you get solid mechanics. This is a really good piece of advice, find someone good and play as many 2vs2 and 3v3s with him as you can. It will really make the game more interesting if you aren't a huge fan of losing 50 games straight ;D | ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
| ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On March 25 2010 11:47 FrozenArbiter wrote: This is a really good piece of advice, find someone good and play as many 2vs2 and 3v3s with him as you can. It will really make the game more interesting if you aren't a huge fan of losing 50 games straight ;D i wouldnt recommend that. you learn a lot less in 2v2 because you are a lot less responsible for the outcome of the game. you arent the only target for being attacked either and thus also wont learn good builds. id approach it from the other side and find someone to play with where who wins or loses simply doesnt matter, like practicing with someone you know. i know it worked for me, while i would never learn to get my shit together by playing 2v2. maybe its different for different people though. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On March 25 2010 11:28 Treeplant wrote: I'm really going to have to disagree with you here. I'm mainly a counter strike player, and I always wanted to get into SC BW, but never did because it was too damn hard. When I played, all I would do is enter korean hunter games (I swear the only thing on bnet) and try to 6 pool every game. If the first attack didn't gay a toss user, I would leave with shame. I was that bad. However, I saw SC2 as a whole new game, one that would give a chance to newcomers to RTS's. I think a lot of people anticipated SC2 in the same way. Since it has come out, I have been in plat league and have beaten some relatively known sc1 players. The game is just soooo much easier mechanically, which in my opinion is the main reason beginners couldn't compete with sc1 veterans. Anyone can remember some BO's and learn hard counters, but unless you have insane multitasking in SC1, you're not going to be able to execute. So yeah, SC2 has leveled the playing ground for RTS noobs to challenge SC1 players. So try not to start with the mentality that you are already too far behind RTS players. I would say that SC2 is far more mechanically demanding than BW. The only reason for the huge difference in APM is you aren't having to constantly cycle through multiple control groups of units and don't have to individually select all of your building structures. SC2 more than makes up for that in the constantly having to remember to do a much larger number of things. As a protoss player, for instance, I have to constantly be on my warpgates so that I don't miss a cycle, chronoboosting my non-warpgate production buildings/upgrade structures, producing probes, being mindful of my observers and managing my army. I'm sure I forgot about many other things. In BW, you could ignore a lot of things once you started/built them and base management is much less intensive. I'd have to say the biggest difference is mainly just managing large armies. Very high APM in BW was only really necessary since managing a large army and keeping up on your macro was very mechanically intense. However, good army management was only really necessary at a very high level of play. Which is why most people who aren't pros are macro players. Quality micro while keeping up on your macro just isn't possible without good mechanics. That's really the only big difference. I still feel as if I'm doing far more in SC2. | ||
|
Black Octopi
187 Posts
Problem 1: "Practice" Problem 0: "Awareness and Planning" Boxor (in his day) was not known for his micro as much as he was known for his cheezy play. All-in double-proxy Barracks/Barracks/Supply rush build, EMP/Nuke Nexus, Medic/Wraith vs Carriers, Micro-ed Marine Hitsquads vs Lurkers etc. If you think you're getting a "solid game" then you're doing it wrong! and just getting overly comfy with yourself. The game is not there for you to trade units like resources for the win. The game is there for you to make it unfair! | ||
|
goswser
United States3548 Posts
| ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
On March 25 2010 11:57 enzym wrote: i wouldnt recommend that. you learn a lot less in 2v2 because you are a lot less responsible for the outcome of the game. you arent the only target for being attacked and thus also wont learn good bos. id approach it from the other side and find someone to play with where who wins or loses simply doesnt matter, like practicing with someone you know. i know it worked for me, while i would never learn to get my shit together by playing 2v2. maybe its different for different people though. It depends on what kind of frustration tolerance you have and what you're looking to get out of SC2 I guess. I have a friend who'd probably be low copper league 1v1 (he stopped playing 1v1 ladder after losing his first 2 placement matches), but what he wants out of SC2 is a bit of fun and he's just not interested in losing again and again in an effort to get better. The solution is that he's been playing 2v2 with me and instead of being a copper 1v1 player, he's in a platinum 2v2 team (not that I'm that great, but the level in the 2v2 ladder is pretty low). | ||
|
goswser
United States3548 Posts
[b]On March 25 2010 10:00 evilK wrote[b]: many many letters haha! If you compiled all the threads ever made on teamliquid, you would have a pile of text larger than War and Peace, the Bible, Moby Dick, and the entire Wheel of Time series combined. | ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
In short, its only rewarding if you find this game and the competition of it rewarding. If your just looking for a casual game where you can have fun whenever just to kill time, than the campaign will better suit you. I think if your already thinking "big deal, I dont get why anyone would want to dedicate to being good at this" then you probably shouldnt bother. It is just one of those things where the people who dedicate themselves to it are dedicated fans who get an overwhelming amount of joy from pulling off a good Macro/Micro/Strategic move. It is one of those games, where the multiplayer aspect is better suited for the small niche community that is just that into it that the rewards are worth the time spent, and for some the time spent is the rewarding aspect. Just as a for instance, my friend and I have been huge fans of the pro-scene and competitive SC scene for a while now, with the release of SC2 i have decided to dedicate myself to becoming a better SC2 player, like someone in Platinum division (im currently in Silver, started in bronze, at 1900 elo in Silver hoping to get bumped to gold when ladders reset). My friend and I both agreed "lets focus and get good at SC2 since well have a jump ont he competition thanks to beta. Im currently almost Gold, whereas he is in Bronze division and has already given up on it. To him it simply wasnt worth the time it takes to progress, but I love it and find winning and progressing to be the most rewarding gaming I have ever done. Will you ever get a pat on the back or a high five in real life for being good at SC2? Probably not, but that doesnt mean YOU shouldnt find it rewarding. Just my 2 cents here. | ||
|
[DUF]MethodMan
Germany1716 Posts
On March 25 2010 11:00 Jonoman92 wrote: Very nice OP, it's nice to see sc2 from a total outsiders view. I totally see why jumping into the beta could be overwhelming. I mean, at the copper level I'd think there are plenty of total noobs but I don't really know. If blizz does a good ladder system upon the real release hopefully all skill levels will have a place to find similarly skilled opponents though so everyone can play and improve. imo, one problem with the current state of sc2 is most people already know how, and want to play in a competitive manner. When I, and many other bw veterans I assume, learned sc, I learned through playing all sorts of different game modes and I didn't even begin to play many 1v1s until I had a pretty solid grasp of the game. (Money maps, 2v2s, 3v3s (of low quality because many people were just noobs like me) and even ums and ffa.) This is important considering a 1v1 match is the most mentally demanding game type imo. It's just tough to jump into the most difficult part of a game and work to improve while having a good time. Hopefully the final release with the campaign will help people who are new to the game to have a stepping stone to multiplayer and even then there should be plenty of beginners to play with each other. Very important post. I played SC:BW for almost 12 years and I only started getting somewhat decent after some 5 years of messing around on moneymaps, UMS, FFA, team games, etc. 5 years just to get decent. Of course then there weren't infinite VODs, strategy discussion, replays, etc. or those things were only available to a very small circle of top players. And as said before, at least SC:BW was very rewarding the higher your skill got. Just start out with something fun to you, may it be team games, custom games, UMS. Ofc those aren't out yet, so I might suggest you should wait until the final release of SC2. | ||
| ||
