|
Slovakia136 Posts
On April 28 2010 01:56 StaticKinetics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 01:52 SkelA wrote:
This is why pro players will never lose to a amateurs most of the time. That cant be said for SC2. Even noob can win a "pro" if he gets a bo advantage and the oponent cant do shit to counter it.
And thus, the noob is better than the pro. I don't see your point. If the "pro" has a shitty counter to the "noobs" BO than the noob is better, regardless of gimmicky micro tricks and UBER 1337 APM
So you really dont see a problem when much better player will lose a game with newbie because of luck? I mean, is scouting and BO hard counters really the only thing you want to see in a competetive game?
|
LaLush you are my hero.
I completely agree.
|
On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible"
yes, all the people with low amounts of posts such as myself should be ashamed of ourselves for not spamming the forums enough with QQ written with caps during half of the post.
|
I think SC2 just requires a different kind of skill than SC1. Because of the damage-bonus and armour system I think a lot more decision-making has to be done on the fly to determine if your unit composition is capable of taking on your opponent's. Since this air-unit moving shot micro thing isn't a factor, its more important to focus on your macro and get the right army composition in the right place at the right time. Which is a skill in itself.
|
On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible"
Holy crap awesome post.
|
On April 28 2010 02:09 MarGeta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" yes, all the people with low amounts of posts such as myself should be ashamed of ourselves for not spamming the forums enough with QQ written with caps during half of the post.
On the other hand, most low-post-count users have never even played BW, yet are commenting on it having played the SC2 beta for 2 days.
I think SC2 just requires a different kind of skill than SC1. Because of the damage-bonus and armour system I think a lot more decision-making has to be done on the fly to determine if your unit composition is capable of taking on your opponent's. Since this air-unit moving shot micro thing isn't a factor, its more important to focus on your macro and get the right army composition in the right place at the right time. Which is a skill in itself.
Except there was a HUGE focus on macro, being much harder in BW (that is to say, no MBS, FE builds popular); all the things you stated had more of an emphasis in SC2 were prominent in SC1 and were so much harder, take, for example, macro. In SC1, you'd have about 8-10 barracks, all of them having to be constantly in production, along with constant SCV production. It was much more satisfying and rewarding knowing you could hit f2 and build 8 marines in a second, whereas in SC2 it's just hit the hotkey, aaaaaaaa. Also, you say determining if your unit combination can take on your opponents: isn't that mostly based around luck? You forget scouting for a second, oh look, your opponent had a hidden starport tech, and now has a million billion cloaked banshees in your base. GG.
|
|
|
Indeed.
SC2 is a new game with focus on new skills
Multi-tasking is a much bigger deal in SC2 than in BW but micro took a hit as a result.
I don't think removing the glide mechanic would be a good idea. It would detract from the realistic feel of SC2.
EDIT: I've been playing BW on and off since 2002 and any ad-homonym attacks will be ignored.
|
This article is ridiculous. Old school BW players need to get a grip.
Starcraft 2 rocks because I can take a sip of beer every now and then and still have a shot at winning in COPPER LEAGUE! w00t!!!
Seriously, if your favorite "patrol at a 37 degree angle to the way you're flying, then a-move to the crescent of the minerals for 7% better chance to avoid a turret missile" clicksploitation doesn't work any more, then you always have Brood War. But Blizzard has moved on, like it or not. It's a new game for a new demographic. I think it's awesome...
Will anyone think it's awesome in a year? Ten years? It's pointless to speculate on that really... Play it if you like it, and play something else if you don't.
|
On April 28 2010 02:09 MarGeta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" yes, all the people with low amounts of posts such as myself should be ashamed of ourselves for not spamming the forums enough with QQ written with caps during half of the post.
Its funny that you have no answer to the points i bring up, and keep on saying 'QQ'
acting like your average WoW player basically, whenever someone opposes your point of view, just say they're QQ'ing
On April 28 2010 02:16 xmo wrote:
Indeed.
SC2 is a new game with focus on new skills
Multi-tasking is a much bigger deal in SC2 than in BW but micro took a hit as a result.
I don't think removing the glide mechanic would be a good idea. It would detract from the realistic feel of SC2.
EDIT: I've been playing BW on and off since 2002 and any ad-homonym attacks will be ignored.
*bzzzt* wrong.
What 'new' skills does sc2 require that BW didnt require? and how is multitasking a bigger deal exactly? BW had no MBS and automining, so you had to give attention to that, now we have macro mechanics that basically act the same way, but to a lesser extent (i.e, require less apm)
and micro took a hit. Yes there still is micro, you will lose if you dont micro in situations with small amounts of units, but as the ball gets bigger and bigger, the micro required dwindles, almost to nothing. Basically, you do need to micro, but not NEARLY as intensively as BW.
|
On April 28 2010 02:11 Garrl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 02:09 MarGeta wrote:On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" yes, all the people with low amounts of posts such as myself should be ashamed of ourselves for not spamming the forums enough with QQ written with caps during half of the post. On the other hand, most low-post-count users have never even played BW, yet are commenting on it having played the SC2 beta for 2 days.
True, and I have to admit I also do kinda ignore posts by people with low post counts during most of the time but im getting tired of TL being all about post count e-peen for so many people >_>
|
On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible"
/agreed.
|
On April 28 2010 02:09 Bibdy wrote:
Since this air-unit moving shot micro thing isn't a factor, its more important to focus on your macro and get the right army composition in the right place at the right time. Which is a skill in itself.
Yeah, but its much more boring to watch macro than micro. Micro is what gave the game its OOOOs and AHHHHHS. Theres still micro in the game, but it seems much less important atm. I feel like since its beta we should at least TRY playing the game with attack animations being shorter and move n shoot. I doubt blizzard would do this for us though. More than likely if we ever play it this way it'll be someone who did it through the map editor. Someone get on that plz
|
On April 28 2010 02:17 infrinjinsin wrote:
This article is ridiculous. Old school BW players need to get a grip.
Starcraft 2 rocks because I can take a sip of beer every now and then and still have a shot at winning in COPPER LEAGUE! w00t!!!
Seriously, if your favorite "patrol at a 37 degree angle to the way you're flying, then a-move to the crescent of the minerals for 7% better chance to avoid a turret missile" clicksploitation doesn't work any more, then you always have Brood War. But Blizzard has moved on, like it or not. It's a new game for a new demographic. I think it's awesome...
"Yarr, I drink beer because I'm a real man, you're all nerds go back to brood war"
There's no reason the skill ceiling can't be as high as BW and have the game still be fun for casuals...that's what ladder placement is for. There will always be a BGH crowd and they will play eachother and try to use some of the pro micro tricks, maybe fail miserably but when they work it's exciting...instead of just doing some all-in build order every game and posting it on youtube when you beat idrA and he calls you a faggot..
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible"
Antz, can I just say your post is so ubelievably ridiculous it's unreal.
The beta has been out for 2 months now and you're saying we're already reaching the max stratergies we'll ever get? No, that's not going to happen for a long time. Also, have people forgotten how bad Starcraft was? Compare SC2 to Starcraft. At the beginning of Starcraft the game was so terrible it was unreal, there was no such thing as macro and most games were over to some form of all in rush every single game, now look at SC2.
There's a dedicated playerbase already playing the game to try and find out the cool tips and tricks but some people just refuse to give it a chance. My post count is low here ish because I generally only come to read, post count doesn't come into this discussion and using it is a complete and utter way out of a tight spot. Some people like you refuse to even give the game a chance to be good, while DeMuslim and various other good players who will more than likely be better than most of us for a long time are playing and enjoying the game for what it is.
This isn't Brood War 1.5, it was never planned to be. It's a new game with a new engine which is still in beta for christ sake, if you expect a game to be perfect in Beta then you obviously have super high standards higher than that of the royalty of various countries, so how about you stop arguing about what's not in the game, look at what is and try and make the best with what Blizzard have very kindly supplied us with after 8 years of waiting and enjoy the game, for what it is. An amazing game.
|
I use corruptors any time the game goes mid-late vs protoss. Decent vs colo and after any fight i go corrupt their shit and it's game over. GL rebuilding your army w/ no robos and half the gates.
I agree with your point about the moving shot, however, I don't think the micro is gone. I think there is a ton of micro involved in sc2 if you put your mind to it. Playing on the asia server I find the games to be MUCH more intense than the NA server and that's because people take the time to micro units properly rather than attack move.
The skill cap on sc2 is obviously lower than sc1 because a lot of tricks are removed and I agree that it's wattered down. I'd love to see the skill requirements bumped up, but blizzard thinks in dollars and cents so the model for their market is to make everyone a winner and if the game is too tough that can't possibly happen (in their eyes)
|
I think it's unfair to claim that there is "no" micro, but I definitely agree with you that it has less than SC:BW, and could use a lot more. That or maybe it's just a different type of micro we aren't used to.
|
On April 28 2010 02:18 MarGeta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 02:11 Garrl wrote:On April 28 2010 02:09 MarGeta wrote:On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" yes, all the people with low amounts of posts such as myself should be ashamed of ourselves for not spamming the forums enough with QQ written with caps during half of the post. On the other hand, most low-post-count users have never even played BW, yet are commenting on it having played the SC2 beta for 2 days. True, and I have to admit I also do kinda ignore posts by people with low post counts during most of the time but im getting tired of TL being all about post count e-peen for so many people >_>
Its not exactly that higher post count = bigger e-peen, or even that high post count users are always smart or huge contributors. Hell, look at charliemurphy. Even I managed to get 22xx posts even though as you can tell im pretty confrontational and not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
The reason that when a low post user says something in relation to both BW and SC2, its not taken entirely seriously because normally, the low posts users only came here for sc2, and didnt really give BW a chance, or watch its progaming scene quite as closely, or at all. again, thats not saying this applies as a blanket statement to all low post users, but...you know what i mean.
|
On April 28 2010 02:17 infrinjinsin wrote:
This article is ridiculous. Old school BW players need to get a grip.
Starcraft 2 rocks because I can take a sip of beer every now and then and still have a shot at winning in COPPER LEAGUE! w00t!!!
Seriously, if your favorite "patrol at a 37 degree angle to the way you're flying, then a-move to the crescent of the minerals for 7% better chance to avoid a turret missile" clicksploitation doesn't work any more, then you always have Brood War. But Blizzard has moved on, like it or not. It's a new game for a new demographic. I think it's awesome...
Will anyone think it's awesome in a year? Ten years? It's pointless to speculate on that really... Play it if you like it, and play something else if you don't.
Heh, copper league players telling BW players to get a grip. Cute.
|
On April 28 2010 02:11 Garrl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 02:09 MarGeta wrote:On April 28 2010 01:56 TheAntZ wrote:
Holy shit, huge surprise guys, low post users disagreeing with the OP. And then we get a bunch of "why discriminate just cuz my post count is low OMG T_T"
this is why
Heres basically every low post user post in this thread
"Yes BW was great, so what, you actually want ANOTHER great game? wtf is wrong with you. go play bw, thats already great, and let us keep our fun game with its low skill ceiling allowing mechanically challenged players feel like they're worth something
Oh also, stop wanting stuff from BW to be in SC2, its an entirely different game! So what if BW was the best strategy game ever, and thus WARRANTS some copying, as it'd assure success? SO? I AM IMMUNE TO YOUR LOGIC I WANT A NEW GAME
oh also i'd like the game to be entirely about strategies, and i'd like to ignore the fact that theres only so much to be done before you reach a certain number of optimal strategies in this day and age of RTS evolution. If you want to deny that, please warn me so that I may place my fingers in my ears, and shout as loudly as possible" yes, all the people with low amounts of posts such as myself should be ashamed of ourselves for not spamming the forums enough with QQ written with caps during half of the post. On the other hand, most low-post-count users have never even played BW, yet are commenting on it having played the SC2 beta for 2 days. Show nested quote +I think SC2 just requires a different kind of skill than SC1. Because of the damage-bonus and armour system I think a lot more decision-making has to be done on the fly to determine if your unit composition is capable of taking on your opponent's. Since this air-unit moving shot micro thing isn't a factor, its more important to focus on your macro and get the right army composition in the right place at the right time. Which is a skill in itself. Except there was a HUGE focus on macro, being much harder in BW (that is to say, no MBS, FE builds popular); all the things you stated had more of an emphasis in SC2 were prominent in SC1 and were so much harder, take, for example, macro. In SC1, you'd have about 8-10 barracks, all of them having to be constantly in production, along with constant SCV production. It was much more satisfying and rewarding knowing you could hit f2 and build 8 marines in a second, whereas in SC2 it's just hit the hotkey, aaaaaaaa. Also, you say determining if your unit combination can take on your opponents: isn't that mostly based around luck? You forget scouting for a second, oh look, your opponent had a hidden starport tech, and now has a million billion cloaked banshees in your base. GG.
If you're relying on luck to win your battles, you've got a pretty big, fundamental "doing it wrong" problem.
Right now I look at a blob of Marauders, look at my own Gateway army and determine, do I:
A) Have enough Zealot tanks to survive long enough to keep them off my ranged units?
B) Have enough ranged units to kill them quick enough, relative to the number of Zealots I have and Marauders he has.
C) Where do I want to fight? Can I use Force Field to swing the fight in my favour by either stopping their ability to kite, or split his army in half?
D) Is he teching something else in the meantime and trying to bait me into an Immortal army with all these Marauders?
All these questions and decisions go on in my brain before the fight even starts, let alone during it. And the answer to every one is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
