|
On April 24 2010 06:01 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2010 05:44 Holden Caulfield wrote:On April 24 2010 05:19 LaNague wrote:On April 24 2010 04:39 Holden Caulfield wrote:
Why would anyone want a long match if you can beat the guy in less than 10min? The whiners either don't like winning or are playing for fun (should not be complaining then). Because longer games are about figuring out timings and standart builds that deflect agression with minimal effort while short games are more about cheese(either you are dead or you opponen after it). SC may appear to be all about clicking for people not familiar with it, but especially with the larger maps what i described above is important and people want that in Sc2 as well. But why bother? YOu should do the best thing to win and thats it. If that is the so called "cheese" everyone seem to whine about, what's the problem?. People around here seem to have something against winning... The reason why it's a problem is like the most simple aspect of competition ever - making sure the better player wins. If it's incredibly easy to do the strongest strategies, then it's not a very good competitive game. When the maps that come out are rewarding the same easy to pull off difficult to counter strategies (which is what small maps with exploitable terrain do by default), we have a problem. And no, it doesn't take a hundred games to note such rudimentary flaws.
StarCraft is just like that. If the better player always won every time without exception, Flash would never lose. The ability to do something the other player may not be prepared for is what helps keep the game fresh.
|
On April 24 2010 06:03 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2010 06:01 QibingZero wrote:On April 24 2010 05:44 Holden Caulfield wrote:On April 24 2010 05:19 LaNague wrote:On April 24 2010 04:39 Holden Caulfield wrote:
Why would anyone want a long match if you can beat the guy in less than 10min? The whiners either don't like winning or are playing for fun (should not be complaining then). Because longer games are about figuring out timings and standart builds that deflect agression with minimal effort while short games are more about cheese(either you are dead or you opponen after it). SC may appear to be all about clicking for people not familiar with it, but especially with the larger maps what i described above is important and people want that in Sc2 as well. But why bother? YOu should do the best thing to win and thats it. If that is the so called "cheese" everyone seem to whine about, what's the problem?. People around here seem to have something against winning... The reason why it's a problem is like the most simple aspect of competition ever - making sure the better player wins. If it's incredibly easy to do the strongest strategies, then it's not a very good competitive game. When the maps that come out are rewarding the same easy to pull off difficult to counter strategies (which is what small maps with exploitable terrain do by default), we have a problem. And no, it doesn't take a hundred games to note such rudimentary flaws. StarCraft is just like that. If the better player always won every time without exception, Flash would never lose. The ability to do something the other player may not be prepared for is what helps keep the game fresh.
This happens because, as Tossgirl once said "the differencies among progamers are slices of paper". No matter how awesome your strategy might be, if you are just an average yellow rank Joe on Iccup, you will never win against Flash.
|
On April 24 2010 06:03 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2010 06:01 QibingZero wrote:On April 24 2010 05:44 Holden Caulfield wrote:On April 24 2010 05:19 LaNague wrote:On April 24 2010 04:39 Holden Caulfield wrote:
Why would anyone want a long match if you can beat the guy in less than 10min? The whiners either don't like winning or are playing for fun (should not be complaining then). Because longer games are about figuring out timings and standart builds that deflect agression with minimal effort while short games are more about cheese(either you are dead or you opponen after it). SC may appear to be all about clicking for people not familiar with it, but especially with the larger maps what i described above is important and people want that in Sc2 as well. But why bother? YOu should do the best thing to win and thats it. If that is the so called "cheese" everyone seem to whine about, what's the problem?. People around here seem to have something against winning... The reason why it's a problem is like the most simple aspect of competition ever - making sure the better player wins. If it's incredibly easy to do the strongest strategies, then it's not a very good competitive game. When the maps that come out are rewarding the same easy to pull off difficult to counter strategies (which is what small maps with exploitable terrain do by default), we have a problem. And no, it doesn't take a hundred games to note such rudimentary flaws. StarCraft is just like that. If the better player always won every time without exception, Flash would never lose. The ability to do something the other player may not be prepared for is what helps keep the game fresh.
You're vastly overestimating the difference between Flash and other top progamers. He wins as much as you could expect of the 'best' player at any given time. Besides, player dominance in such a highly competitive environment like the Korean BW scene is a good thing.
But in any case, you didn't really address the point. If we're just going to go based off BW, maps like these would simply be anathema to begin with.
|
On April 24 2010 06:32 Slunk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2010 06:03 ComradeDover wrote:On April 24 2010 06:01 QibingZero wrote:On April 24 2010 05:44 Holden Caulfield wrote:On April 24 2010 05:19 LaNague wrote:On April 24 2010 04:39 Holden Caulfield wrote:
Why would anyone want a long match if you can beat the guy in less than 10min? The whiners either don't like winning or are playing for fun (should not be complaining then). Because longer games are about figuring out timings and standart builds that deflect agression with minimal effort while short games are more about cheese(either you are dead or you opponen after it). SC may appear to be all about clicking for people not familiar with it, but especially with the larger maps what i described above is important and people want that in Sc2 as well. But why bother? YOu should do the best thing to win and thats it. If that is the so called "cheese" everyone seem to whine about, what's the problem?. People around here seem to have something against winning... The reason why it's a problem is like the most simple aspect of competition ever - making sure the better player wins. If it's incredibly easy to do the strongest strategies, then it's not a very good competitive game. When the maps that come out are rewarding the same easy to pull off difficult to counter strategies (which is what small maps with exploitable terrain do by default), we have a problem. And no, it doesn't take a hundred games to note such rudimentary flaws. StarCraft is just like that. If the better player always won every time without exception, Flash would never lose. The ability to do something the other player may not be prepared for is what helps keep the game fresh. This happens because, as Tossgirl once said "the differencies among progamers are slices of paper". No matter how awesome your strategy might be, if you are just an average yellow rank Joe on Iccup, you will never win against Flash.
There've been several Korean TV shows that feature average battle.net tards occasionally winning against progamers. The better player -usually- wins, but StarCraft is, to some extent, an unpredictable child. Anything can happen, and upsets often do happen.
On April 24 2010 06:42 QibingZero wrote:
But in any case, you didn't really address the point. If we're just going to go based off BW, maps like these would simply be anathema to begin with.
Why?
|
Decena seems good 
|
hey look, 4 more 2v2 maps and i still get twilight fortress 4/5 times
cooooooooool
|
Too small! I want waay larger maps for 1v1s, these force you to go 1 controlgroup, splitting up your army is insta dead atm.
|
On April 24 2010 06:50 ZaaaaaM wrote:Too small! I want waay larger maps for 1v1s, these force you to go 1 controlgroup, splitting up your army is insta dead atm.
Not true.
I always use, at the very least, two control groups, on any map in almost any matchup.
|
On April 24 2010 06:01 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2010 05:44 Holden Caulfield wrote:On April 24 2010 05:19 LaNague wrote:On April 24 2010 04:39 Holden Caulfield wrote:
Why would anyone want a long match if you can beat the guy in less than 10min? The whiners either don't like winning or are playing for fun (should not be complaining then). Because longer games are about figuring out timings and standart builds that deflect agression with minimal effort while short games are more about cheese(either you are dead or you opponen after it). SC may appear to be all about clicking for people not familiar with it, but especially with the larger maps what i described above is important and people want that in Sc2 as well. But why bother? YOu should do the best thing to win and thats it. If that is the so called "cheese" everyone seem to whine about, what's the problem?. People around here seem to have something against winning... The reason why it's a problem is like the most simple aspect of competition ever - making sure the better player wins. If it's incredibly easy to do the strongest strategies, then it's not a very good competitive game. When the maps that come out are rewarding the same easy to pull off difficult to counter strategies (which is what small maps with exploitable terrain do by default), we have a problem. And no, it doesn't take a hundred games to note such rudimentary flaws.
But I'm not talking about the state of the game. Its just that people seem to want to have fun, to have a good game AND to win at the same time. Just because player A win with cheese or do the same thing over and over again and player B loses trying to play a nice game, with nonstop action and such, doenst make player A worse. Player A is just doing what's necessary to win.
There is nothing wrong with a map that rewards fast rushes, all in, cheese or whatever strategies. There is nothing wrong with map that dictates how the match will be played. If the maps were randomly generated and one side is better than the other, then I would agree, but the maps are all mirrored, nobody gets a map advantage. It all comes do to the races then, and that's another story.
|
What kind of cheese is there? Do you not know how to scout it? Are you any more able to defend against the same kind of cheese on other maps? Cheese is like any other strategy, learn to scout/counter effectively and you'll laugh your ass off anytime someone does cookie-cutter cheese since they normally scrap production to get that out.
Oh, and replays please. I just see blind theory-crafting here.
People are complaning left and right "there's no micro", "there's no harrass", "there's no macro" and other such bull. Continue playing the game, it's been out for almost two months, no? I've seen tons of macro games on a bunch of different maps. Sure, not much tier 3 for the moment, it's just that players haven't really found much reason to go there for the moment cause most players try to follow the current MU trends. Play on, new viable strategies will develop. Sure, this map will promote early aggression, but doesn't that count as harrass and micro? Why would early aggression while macroing not take any skill?
I feel big part of the QQ about this map is directly due to the 10-ling cheese attack cause of the last patch. That will go away, the game lasts like 2-3 minutes long, play another game and don't care: it's only stats.
|
I don't like Incineration Zone because the main base is way too big. The gold AND naturals are both siege-able easily. Since the main has a vast area to cover it's nearly impossible to stop drops. I dunno but it seems like a heavily Terran favored map.
As for the 2v2's I've played a few games on them only, but the desert twilight fortress like macro map has an awesome spot to hide tech that's doubtful to be scouted. I also think it's rather weird that theres a map where only one member has a back door. Kinda puts pressure on that one player.
All in all I hate the new 1v1 map but the 2v2 ones are okay. I do miss Metropolis though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
