EPTBut i can understand if BW coreplayers does't like everything.
Starcraft 2 Too easy? Too "noob friendly"? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Garson
Sweden203 Posts
But i can understand if BW coreplayers does't like everything. | ||
|
PeekabooTheJew
3 Posts
It seems like the biggest argument has been that SC2 is too streamlined and doesn't have enough "OMGWTFHOWDIDTHATHAPPEN" in it. It's the beta guys. No, it's more than that. It's the beta of the first installment of a three installment game. Think about the scope of where we are now to where we'll be after all three installments have come out. This is the bones, the foundation of the game. Trust me, there will be plenty of opportunities for blizzard to tweak something into broken and leave it there, forcing you to micro your way out of bad balancing. There's no reason to put any more thought into it than that. In a slightly related matter, HELLOO GRAPHICS UPDATE! Graphics aren't the most important part of a game, but it's so much better to not be playing in the 1998 mega man era of videogames. | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On July 15 2010 19:04 TTL wrote: Im a rookie without much of RTS experience. When i first played sc2 beta i was like " woah wtf is going on " . After 100 games i adjusted to it and manage to reach high gold lvl in beta but there is always one thought in my mind ! Battles are 2 fast to properly micro and use spells nicely,units die like flys when you specially reach the mid game. It would be much more enjoyable if these fights could last much longer. Thats really the part where you have joy and you will get better taste if it lasts longer in my opinion. Hard part to play this game is to macro and micro properly at same time,since battles are 2 fast its really hard for a casual player to control it all unless you have uber multitasking skills. Even high skilled players that i watch from stream just attack moves and goes back to macro most of the times to keep up with production.This game is not casual n00b friendly at all and if blizzard wants more attention to this game and wants to sell all those expensions, they will make this game easier for casual players like they do in world of warcraft. Casuals are majority of the gamers and good players always shine from others anyway. Hope you get my point >_< indeed the battles are too fast, shit just flies everywhere and its over. One of the big reasons why BW is so much better than SC2, because the battles last longer and you can actually see what the hell is going on. | ||
|
Kimera757
Canada129 Posts
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. That's not what noob-friendly means. Also, the game doesn't have training tools yet; they're not going to get a whole lot better without teaching. | ||
|
SilentCrono
United States1420 Posts
| ||
|
Mesha
Bosnia-Herzegovina439 Posts
Also i agree that battles being faster than in Broodwar somewhat changes the whole Starcraft thing... | ||
|
Luvz
Norway356 Posts
| ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:47 Psychopomp wrote: This. All I can figure out, is that they're whining about the game having a simple, clean, easy to use interface. Tic tac toe is fairly easy, and no matter the competition you have. What counts is both the competition and the skill ceiling of the game, which i think is fairly high on SC2. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On July 15 2010 20:44 ArvickHero wrote: indeed the battles are too fast, shit just flies everywhere and its over. One of the big reasons why BW is so much better than SC2, because the battles last longer and you can actually see what the hell is going on. Um, um, battles in sc1 tend to be over almost instantly as well... Lethality in both games is very high except for protoss, but if you play any variant involving just terran and zerg lethality is extreme. | ||
|
DemiSe
883 Posts
Easy to play, hard to master. Whereas BW was hard to play and hard to master Second that. I don't understand how a PvP (player vs player) game can ever be labeled as "too easy". How difficult the game is depends on your competition. This. All I can figure out, is that they're whining about the game having a simple, clean, easy to use interface. If they win by simple and easy use of the interface they doesn't really play highlevel opponents and if they don't they havn't really played the game. | ||
|
Herculix
United States946 Posts
| ||
|
OPSavioR
Sweden1465 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:37 Reason.SC2 wrote: I don't understand how a PvP (player vs player) game can ever be labeled as "too easy". How difficult the game is depends on your competition. The only way that would be anything remotely resembling a coherent statement is if the skill cap was very low. If this were the case however "top players" would have very erratic results and ~60% win rates rather than what the actuality is. The funny thing is that most of the elitists who complain that starcraft2 is too easy are nowhere near the top (which by the way imo has not yet begun to approach the skill cap for this game) Take the Idra's and WhiteRa's of today... i can almost guarantee you that in several months time your run-of-the-mill high level diamond player would be beating them. Of course by this time they will have improved as well so it won't *actually* end up happening but you get the gist of it... Very wise | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5417 Posts
Also, the top players are still above and beyond the average player... even "top ladder" players these days couldn't hope to take a game off a "War3 pro" in a BO7 or anything. I remember in the game's prime I would watch people like Grubby absolutely stomp newer "pros" to the scene without breaking a sweat. It looked like someone like Flash dominating a foreigner. No one will ever hit the skill-cap in SC2, and the skill level between a top Diamond level player will still be huge compared to the "pros". Even now, do you really think someone like Idra/White-ra will lose to some random top 20 Diamond player in a serious matchup, where both players can prepare for the map and matchup, ie. tournament style? It's certainly not going to happen with any consistency... nor have we seen it happen at all, from what I can tell, in the beta so far. | ||
|
Obscure
United States272 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  Am I the only person who disagrees with this? BW is not and never was hard to play. When it was released, I felt like it was one of the easier RTS games to play at the time and it was a big reason why I stuck with it (along with being amazing all-around.) | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 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. You must have missed the Real-Time part in RTS? If you want to play a strategy only game, go play chess or something. | ||
|
AmstAff
Germany949 Posts
BW needed strong mechanics and on 2nd place a good strategy or strategical knowledge. In SC2 you still need some mechanics but i think even the average player will master them, cause its easier to macro good and at the same time its harder to macro better than someone who understood the basics and macros good. In SC2 everything will be more about BOs/Timingpushes etc and that are things that everybody can learn and master. T think in SC2 it will be important to be always "up 2 date". | ||
|
simme123
Sweden810 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:58 arb wrote: Unlike Terran(weakest in sc1/what i palyed) Protoss is the weakest race now The roles have been changed my friend Anyone saying Terran is the weakest race in SC1 is an idiot. (<3 to all you terrans out there who think this) Also, do we REALLY need this thread again? REALLY? | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On July 15 2010 13:50 ketomai wrote: SC2 just takes out a huge part of the mechanics part of RTS, which was one of those most important factors in differentiating skill between opponents (look at koreans, look at us). In fact, I think between the ranks of C- and B-, it's probably all a mechanical difference (or 90%). It's no wonder I can keep up with B- SCBW players at SC2 when I can instantly level the playing ground on the first thing that separated good from bad players in BW. SC2 won't plateau, but like idra said, the skill level of the top players is going to be extremely close thanks to the mechanical aspect being thrown out. In a sense I think it's 'too easy' for the top rather than 'too noob friendly'. The features that are making it easier for noobs to get into the game are also limiting the skill ceiling for top gamers. This. Also, Saracen's article pretty much describes what SC2 is missing that BW had. It just lost that magic touch where a single darkswarm can change the outcome of the game.Yes, things like that are still possible in sc2, but the effect is a lot less compared to BW. And things like a 5 vultures killing 5 dragoons or 20 hydras or doing no damage at all or 11 mutas killing 11 marines and 10 scvs or gets killed without too much damage. Either way, I'm pretty much done with sc2 until they improve it. I just find it worst than bw in every way except graphics and maybe the amount of customization of the game(So much stuff you can customize now for ums). I only play the beta now with friends for some ums games. Although, some of the classic bw ums like evolves did not transition very well due to different units between the games. | ||
|
PokePill
United States1048 Posts
On July 15 2010 22:12 SoleSteeler wrote: People said the skill-cap was too low in War3, and did anyone ever hit it? No. And in that game, you rarely had more than 12-15 units to micro... battles were slower, and HPs were higher. . lots of autocast spells, fairly easy to use hero skills, etc. ... I don't know why you don't think the cap wasn't "hit." But pretty much every high level player plays at roughly the same level because they all hit the "skill ceiling." In the sense that micro, macro, timings, build orders, creeping patterns, and decision making were all flawless in the sense that marginal differences in this flawlessness isn't enough to have any impact on who wins. This is what happens when you play on the same maps for 7 years. A game of Grubby vs Lyn example comes down to who gets the best items or the most crits. And if it doesn't, it comes down to lucky situation where a hero is sniped. Other than that there is virtually no way to "outplay" another player, because everything else is perfect. There can never be a "dominant" player again because the game is at a point where everyone is at complete parity. Also, the top players are still above and beyond the average player... even "top ladder" players these days couldn't hope to take a game off a "War3 pro" in a BO7 or anything. I remember in the game's prime I would watch people like Grubby absolutely stomp newer "pros" to the scene without breaking a sweat. It looked like someone like Flash dominating a foreigner. Top ladder players are amateurs. Newer pros haven't been playing the same game for 7 years, several hours day in and day out. | ||
| ||
