EPTBlizzard invites Korean progamers for balance talk - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Terranlisk
Singapore1404 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
On July 05 2010 16:49 eugen1225 wrote: It's funny how they focus on Asian players to balance the game, when it's a fact (in every blizzard game SC,WC3 and now SC2) that Koreans tended to be more mechanical and less creative, when Europeans are the exact opposite. This is most evident in SC1, and it was a case in wc3. Imagine 2 approaches to a loss: 1) If i lose its because my execution wasn't perfect, i must practice more my execution, and only when I peak at this and still lose will I start considering a strategy adjustment. (Korean mindset) 2)If I lose it's probably because of my strategy and inefficiency, i should 1st look into the strategy and look for windows to exploit, and new unit combo's rather than admitting faulty mechanics, only when 'on paper' i have the seemingly 'perfect' strategy will I focus on improving my execution of that strategy. (Europe mindset) This is reflected in the play styles i feel, and it is my opinion that balance-wise Europeans would be better at the job of balancing, because they are more keen to finding exploits, which is more important in the first stages of balance (and lets face it, we are still in that stage). The 'meticulous mechanics' approach is better in the latter stages of balancing. Point: Give top Euro players this opportunity.  Koreans have better mechanics AND strategy in both games. If foreigners are somehow strategically superior, how come all metagame revolutions were started by Koreans? | ||
|
Lighioana
Norway466 Posts
| ||
|
Tropics
United Kingdom1132 Posts
On July 05 2010 17:11 maybenexttime wrote: Koreans have better mechanics AND strategy in both games. If foreigners are somehow strategically superior, how come all metagame revolutions were started by Koreans? they definitely weren't i mean they've started quite a lot but for the first month and a half or so of beta people had korea written off as a weaker server based on their replays and stuff and were using their own stuff exclusively | ||
|
NEWater
Singapore178 Posts
| ||
|
Lighioana
Norway466 Posts
On July 05 2010 16:49 eugen1225 wrote: It's funny how they focus on Asian players to balance the game, when it's a fact (in every blizzard game SC,WC3 and now SC2) that Koreans tended to be more mechanical and less creative, when Europeans are the exact opposite. This is most evident in SC1, and it was a case in wc3. Imagine 2 approaches to a loss: 1) If i lose its because my execution wasn't perfect, i must practice more my execution, and only when I peak at this and still lose will I start considering a strategy adjustment. (Korean mindset) 2)If I lose it's probably because of my strategy and inefficiency, i should 1st look into the strategy and look for windows to exploit, and new unit combo's rather than admitting faulty mechanics, only when 'on paper' i have the seemingly 'perfect' strategy will I focus on improving my execution of that strategy. (Europe mindset) This is reflected in the play styles i feel, and it is my opinion that balance-wise Europeans would be better at the job of balancing, because they are more keen to finding exploits, which is more important in the first stages of balance (and lets face it, we are still in that stage). The 'meticulous mechanics' approach is better in the latter stages of balancing. Point: Give top Euro players this opportunity. Sorry, but I believe you are wrong. Most of the gimmicks and inventive play I've seen was by watching the asian players streams. Days after a nice strategy was used on the asian servers you would see it popup on the EU/US servers. And it's logical to be so. They have more people understanding the mechanics on BW which translate quite nice in SC2. Therefore more likely to have somebody come up with an interesting strategy. I'm not saying they are smarter. I'm saying they have more having the knowledge and interest therefore the possibility increases. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
On July 05 2010 17:26 Tropics wrote: they definitely weren't i mean they've started quite a lot but for the first month and a half or so of beta people had korea written off as a weaker server based on their replays and stuff and were using their own stuff exclusively Talking about BW. I'm pretty sure we'll see that in SC2 once the game is released. | ||
|
bokchoi
Korea (South)9498 Posts
On July 05 2010 17:10 MyHeroNoob wrote: Fake yellow? It's IntoTheRainbow.. he's been playing as NCYellow and SlayersBoxer throughout beta iirc. Guess he thinks its funny to smurf with those aliases :D | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On July 05 2010 10:21 Taekwon wrote: darn, wished there were BW progamers, but guess they wouldn't have that kind of time =o yeah: Blizzard: So what do you think about the balance? Jaedong/Flash/Bisu/others: ohmm, yeah, well those new units seem shiny, whatever the hell their names and abilities are (they do not play the game, how you expect them to give balance tips?) | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
 | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
On July 05 2010 15:54 Scarecrow wrote: SC2 is very easy for those coming from a BW background. It's hardly vastly different, just simpler + macro gimmicks. TL is almost always right, it's good that you are trying to accept it despite your ignorance. How exactly would BW players who haven't been playing SC2 be able to discuss race and map balance? It's not about who would beat who, its about who has most knowledge and experience of the game. Honestly people say really, really stupid things. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 05 2010 10:16 NuKedUFirst wrote: Hmm. They should ask BW pros for what makes a balanced / good game. Hmm. I fear that *some* BW players are going into SC2 with too many assumptions from BW as to how the game *should feel/look like*. I am not saying that these pros are prejudiced in this way, just that "only nine" is much too low a number for statistics sake anyway and Starcraft is too complex to only have this few people thinking / influencing it. On July 05 2010 17:35 maybenexttime wrote: Talking about BW. I'm pretty sure we'll see that in SC2 once the game is released. Sure, maybe ... but for SC2 during the beta that is definetely UNTRUE and we are trying to balance SC2 and not BW. | ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
Eh, I guess this is good news. Nice to hear Blizzard does care about pro play balance. | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
| ||
|
MetalSlug
Germany443 Posts
On July 05 2010 17:58 bokchoi wrote: It's IntoTheRainbow.. he's been playing as NCYellow and SlayersBoxer throughout beta iirc. Guess he thinks its funny to smurf with those aliases :D Is he a Famous ICCUP player or something ? couldnt find anything about him @liquipedia or else where... --EDIT-- Ok i r an idiot... just realised its an alias of RainBOw ... but why is he listed as Gimseongje or is it just a typo ? | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
Could be cool, but not gonna make a big difference imo. | ||
|
tmonet
United States172 Posts
On July 05 2010 21:56 Piy wrote: lol...What good would getting bw progamers in to balance a different game have...of course they have to be SC2 players.. Could be cool, but not gonna make a big difference imo. After a lot of the things Blizzard says in their reasoning for patches, I think that it's huge that they're talking to real players regardless of who those players are. They've shown a certain amount of disconnect with their game. Hopefully this will help ground them. | ||
|
Hautamaki
Canada1311 Posts
On July 05 2010 16:49 eugen1225 wrote: It's funny how they focus on Asian players to balance the game, when it's a fact (in every blizzard game SC,WC3 and now SC2) that Koreans tended to be more mechanical and less creative, when Europeans are the exact opposite. This is most evident in SC1, and it was a case in wc3. Imagine 2 approaches to a loss: 1) If i lose its because my execution wasn't perfect, i must practice more my execution, and only when I peak at this and still lose will I start considering a strategy adjustment. (Korean mindset) 2)If I lose it's probably because of my strategy and inefficiency, i should 1st look into the strategy and look for windows to exploit, and new unit combo's rather than admitting faulty mechanics, only when 'on paper' i have the seemingly 'perfect' strategy will I focus on improving my execution of that strategy. (Europe mindset) This is reflected in the play styles i feel, and it is my opinion that balance-wise Europeans would be better at the job of balancing, because they are more keen to finding exploits, which is more important in the first stages of balance (and lets face it, we are still in that stage). The 'meticulous mechanics' approach is better in the latter stages of balancing. Point: Give top Euro players this opportunity. I don't really see any evidence to back up this popular claim. It seems to me that after Grrrr... pretty much every major strategy advance was created by a Korean progamer. Since when have Korean progamers ever been behind the curve and stealing strategies from westerners? | ||
|
Attica
United States277 Posts
On July 05 2010 17:29 Lighioana wrote: Sorry, but I believe you are wrong. Most of the gimmicks and inventive play I've seen was by watching the asian players streams. Days after a nice strategy was used on the asian servers you would see it popup on the EU/US servers. And it's logical to be so. They have more people understanding the mechanics on BW which translate quite nice in SC2. Therefore more likely to have somebody come up with an interesting strategy. I'm not saying they are smarter. I'm saying they have more having the knowledge and interest therefore the possibility increases. I don't agree. In fact when beta came out every CowGoMoo and KingHillBilly replay was on ever asian replay site. It's because they both used different playstyles that no one else was using at the time. | ||
|
Comrade
Sweden102 Posts
On July 05 2010 21:12 Duelist wrote: Put WhiteRa and TLO balancing it and i'll be happy. Good as they are I still trust a bunch of koreans to do it better. Stereotype or not. | ||
| ||
