EPTStarcraft 2 Too easy? Too "noob friendly"? - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
figq
12519 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On July 15 2010 12:19 Cofo wrote: It is not humanly possible to play a perfect game of SC. That goes for SC1 AND SC2. First off SC2 mechanics-wise is a lot easier than BW. But whether or not there is still an unreachable skill ceiling remains to be seen. Time will tell. Until then, some people need to stop pretending they know everything. | ||
|
Denizen[9]
United States649 Posts
| ||
|
AncienTs
Japan227 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:46 agleed.agleed wrote: to be honest, at the moment it seems to me like the pool of strategies is going to be exhausted pretty quickly in starcraft 2, but we all have to remember that we have 2 expansions with new additions ahead of us.. i think we have a long way to go before we find the optimal timings for almost all combinations.. just like in bw.. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
So no, SC2 is not too easy or noob friendly. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
I just find SBS (single building selection) a lot more fun than the macro mechanics. You can see result of your macro directly affecting unit production, rather than indirectly. Even at nooby level. Unit control feels easier in BW than in SC2. I can spread or bunch them up easily, where as in SC2 bunching up is really easy, but spreading is really hard. Also how much you focus on your units seems to make a much bigger difference in BW. Also when I'm pumped in BW it seems to make a huge difference to my macro and unit-control and you can really throw off other players too. However in SC2, no matter how much adrenalin is going through my veins, it feels like the outcome remains the same.' I dunno, SC2 feels like a game, but BW feels more like a sport. In that, the amount of blood sweat and tears put into a single game, seems to much more directly affect the result. Just my opinion though. | ||
|
Klamity
United States994 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:36 cr4ckshot wrote: Easy to play, hard to master. Whereas BW was hard to play and hard to master  I echo this sentiment. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8148 Posts
On July 15 2010 15:07 sluggaslamoo wrote: For me its more about fun, than anything else. I just find SBS (single building selection) a lot more fun than the macro mechanics. You can see result of your macro directly affecting unit production, rather than indirectly. Even at nooby level. Unit control feels easier in BW than in SC2. I can spread or bunch them up easily, where as in SC2 bunching up is really easy, but spreading is really hard. Also how much you focus on your units seems to make a much bigger difference in BW. Also when I'm pumped in BW it seems to make a huge difference to my macro and unit-control and you can really throw off other players too. However in SC2, no matter how much adrenalin is going through my veins, it feels like the outcome remains the same.' I dunno, SC2 feels like a game, but BW feels more like a sport. In that, the amount of blood sweat and tears put into a single game, seems to much more directly affect the result. Just my opinion though. QFT mechanically the game is easier to "master", but ofc competition will always drive the demand for skill higher. my personal problem isnt that the difference between pros and amateurs will be too small, its that the game wont be as fun for me to play  . when i macro really good or control a huge 200/200 zerg army in BW i FEEL awesome. i FEEL like i did a really hard task that 99.9% of the human population couldnt do (basically everyone but the several thousand players better than C on ICCUP) in SC2 when i do that stuff it's just so simple and bland comparatively. just like sluggaslamoo said, I feel like im playing a game with SC2 but a sport with BW. the simple mechanics just dont have that brutality that is oh-so-satisfying in BW. | ||
|
USn
United States376 Posts
I mean obviously there will always be some things that can be done slightly better, but if players get to the level where those aren't really significant then yeah, there's a skill cap, in practice, even if it doesn't exist in some abstract philosophical sense. For the same reason, I don't understand the people saying that if mechanical skills cap out the mental game will keep things from stagnating. Again, we just don't know. People are assuming that if mechanical skill does get leveled off this game will have the mental depth of chess or go, which seems improbable to me. Sirlin pointed out that adding layers of interface difficulty only makes sense if your game is terrible because it doesn't challenge people in other ways. Well I doubt bw has enough mental depth for it to have lasted ten years without interface difficulties. So maybe the model we have for RTSes right now is just not that good, and sc2 will expose this. Just to reiterate my first point though, all this is up in the air because the tier one players are busy elsewhere atm. Maybe it really will be that hard to do something like maximize chrono boost and top matches will be decided by an imperfect ability to do so. I dunno. | ||
|
NinjaDrone
United States97 Posts
On July 15 2010 12:06 ckw wrote: In the end, opinions are like asses and everyone has got one. Yes, opinions are like asses and some are shittier than others  | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
I guess it's not only that, but it's a significant part. The other reasons are I guess that the SC2 units are a lot more boring to me than BW units. Marauders/roaches/immortals aren't fun at all to use. They just exist and you have to make them. That, combined with all of this BNet 2.0 crap, combined with the fact that Blizzard thinks that tweaking this unit's damage from 20 to 25 and that unit's HP from 150 to 160 is actually going to change the game and make it a better game, is just getting really stale and boring and I can't find myself enjoying playing at all. I know the standard response is "SC2 isn't BW noob it's a new game" and I obviously realize that. I don't want SC2 to be BW, I do want it to be a new game.. I just want it to actually be fun, and as fun as BW was. And it's not, currently, to me. /end rant | ||
|
tarsier
United Kingdom223 Posts
basically the same except you were forced to return to cc to send workers to mine, make half dozen control groups and manually select buildings to train units in the mid-late game. these are not 'hard' tasks, they just required a high APM. RTS games are not meant to be won or lost over APM. the hint is in the name, STRATEGY. i think the whole 'broodwar was hard to play' is just from the players who were semi-good at broodwar and want to make themselves feel special like an old man with his "in my day..." story. | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
On July 15 2010 15:48 tarsier wrote: why was broodwar 'hard to play'? basically the same except you were forced to return to cc to send workers to mine, make half dozen control groups and manually select buildings to train units in the mid-late game. these are not 'hard' tasks, they just required a high APM. RTS games are not meant to be won or lost over APM. the hint is in the name, STRATEGY. i think the whole 'broodwar was hard to play' is just from the players who were semi-good at broodwar and want to make themselves feel special like an old man with his "in my day..." story. I was absolutely terrible at BW and I find it 100 times more fun to play than SC2 right now. I think you're completely overgeneralizing the differences between the two games if your only case is "it required higher APM because you had to make your workers mine". The reason BW was so fun was because it not only required strategy, but it required you to have decent mechanics. There's no unit at all in SC2 that takes nearly the finesse that controlling a defiler, or vulture did in BW, or a group of marines against a couple lurkers. You're right though that SC2 took out a lot of the "high APM" things and just left the strategy - and that's why it's a boring game to me. The fact that BW took both strategy AND physical skill was what made it so fun. | ||
|
TimeToPractice!
United States105 Posts
But I think I get what you mean. Does it allow very skilled (but not amazingly elite) players to compete at a high level? Yeah, it does - but certainly not 'noobs' | ||
|
Ideas
United States8148 Posts
On July 15 2010 15:48 tarsier wrote: why was broodwar 'hard to play'? basically the same except you were forced to return to cc to send workers to mine, make half dozen control groups and manually select buildings to train units in the mid-late game. these are not 'hard' tasks, they just required a high APM. RTS games are not meant to be won or lost over APM. the hint is in the name, STRATEGY. i think the whole 'broodwar was hard to play' is just from the players who were semi-good at broodwar and want to make themselves feel special like an old man with his "in my day..." story. this quote reminds me so much of that PCgamer(?) interview from last year where the guy said "the main problem with RTS games is that they take place in real-time" and everyone threw a shitstorm. On July 15 2010 15:56 TimeToPractice! wrote: SC2 is certainly not noob friendly. I've had noob friends playing all beta now and they're still only silver players. But I think I get what you mean. Does it allow very skilled (but not amazingly elite) players to compete at a high level? Yeah, it does - but certainly not 'noobs' you could of just left it at "this game is not newb friendly. the silver league (and leagues below diamond) exists!" | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On July 15 2010 14:06 TimmyMac wrote: so THATS why I get stomped by 300apm guys in D level... then your not a D player. lose a few games, go down to E and be happy ok? | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
| ||
|
Jocoma
Denmark100 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:30 Darpinion wrote: because people are failing to realize that someone who has 100 APM will still PROBABLY be dominated by someone who has 300 APM. Just as well as a player with 100 APM can dominate someone with 300 APM. When will you ever stop using the term APM without specifying it further? It's not how many you have it's how you use them in the game... | ||
|
Melt
Switzerland281 Posts
To say it in a simple way: In BW you had 10 things to do but only time to do 5 of them. In SC2 you have also about 10 things to do but you'll be able to do 8 or 9 or maybe all. | ||
|
Decko
United States150 Posts
From my personal experience, after my first 10 matches in placement I made it into the Silver League and I felt pretty good about my self because I haven't played any RTS games in recent years. But I'm like most people that played Blizzard RTS games, I own all of them, and enjoyed all of them for at least a few years. My skill level has improved dramatically, my sense of strategy, timing, and multitasking have all brought my current pinnacle. Now I'm a diamond player, my APM has moved up from 40 to a little over 100, and I feel moderately confident that I'm am now an average player(before I was very below average). At any moment I play, I notice things that I'm missing and forgetting because as the game progresses, more memory, thought, and multitasking are required. Even in the early game, my micro mechanics could be better. The point is, I've only been playing for three months and I've had very blatant improvements in my game performance. And I'm aware of a lot of the ideas I need to improve on. As a human being, I'm inherently flawed and I'm going to overlook most of my flaws when I'm only able to focus on a few at a time. We may never know what the skill cap is, because for all the mistakes we correct, there are a million fold more that we haven't even recognized yet. As a community, if we do not accept that the game has more untapped potential than we have imagined, then we are narrow minded fools. I'd be willing to argue that this is true even for the best players. The game is new, exciting, and fresh, and most importantly we will all have more room than we can fathom to grow as players. | ||
| ||
