EPTStarcraft 2 Too easy? Too "noob friendly"?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Darpinion
United States210 Posts
| ||
|
cr4ckshot
United States291 Posts
 | ||
|
Reason.SC2
Canada1047 Posts
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... | ||
|
agleed.agleed
Germany110 Posts
| ||
|
Psychopomp
United States237 Posts
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. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
an average player can macro quite well, while a good player can only macro a little bit better in sc2. I like it that way as i don't have nimble Asian fingers. | ||
|
Darpinion
United States210 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 well put. | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 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 ^ this pretty much sums it up. sc2 is easy for ppl just starting out, but ull never get to be a top player unless u practice practice practice. in sc1 it was hard for anyone to get into, and once u finnaly did master the controls u still had hell of a long way to go to get any good at the game. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 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.. yeah well, sc2 is about as different from brood war, as brood war was as different to original SC. | ||
|
Darpinion
United States210 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:48 stroggos wrote: the mechanical skill cap is still impossible to reach in sc2(obviously it always will be impossible to reach unless we evolve into a superhuman race). it's just that the differences in mechanics are not as far apart from a bad and good player. an average player can macro quite well, while a good player can only macro a little bit better in sc2. I like it that way as i don't have nimble Asian fingers. I don't disagree that they're not as far apart as BW, but I would say they're further apart than a lot of people are making it sound like. I'm not the greatest player - a lower level diamond at best and a C- SC/BW ICCup player, and people that are two leagues below me on the ladder I dominate at macro because I understand timing much better than they do (i.e. when to expand and how frequently). | ||
|
Darpinion
United States210 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:49 Ballistixz wrote: ^ this pretty much sums it up. sc2 is easy for ppl just starting out, but ull never get to be a top player unless u practice practice practice. in sc1 it was hard for anyone to get into, and once u finnaly did master the controls u still had hell of a long way to go to get any good at the game. I agree with this a lot. | ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding  | ||
|
agleed.agleed
Germany110 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:50 stroggos wrote: yeah well, sc2 is about as different from brood war, as brood war was as different to original SC. yeah.... so? I didn't make any reference to bw at all, lol. | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
If you think the game is too easy, you either need to play better people or just stop playing. Or like IdrA said, if the game is SOOO easy, how come aren't you winning tournaments? | ||
|
Backpack
United States1776 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 Which will expand the player base and supply a better audience for our growing e-sport! | ||
|
Rybka
United States836 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. Games can certainly be too easy if you're looking for a rich experience. Take checkers for example.... fun at first, but then you'd just rather play chess. On July 15 2010 11:37 Reason.SC2 wrote: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. Have you seen the IdrA interview by d.Apollo? IdrA predicts that there will be much more equity in skill at the highest levels of play this time around. On July 15 2010 11:37 Reason.SC2 wrote: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) You're right in saying this game hasn't come close to the "skill cap" you keep describing... like it's some sort of wow stat like hit rating or something... ... but you're off base by complaining about "elitists." This is a competitive game. People are out to beat you. People are out to be better than you. That's what this multiplayer experience is about. On July 15 2010 11:37 Reason.SC2 wrote: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... No, if you magically froze IdrA and WhiteRa you would NOT see random diamond players rise up to their skill in 2-3 months. You have no idea how much better they are than you. | ||
|
Papvin
Denmark610 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 Perfect answer. /thread. | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
Making a game with user friendly intuitive features which allows the masses to play does not in the slightest detriment high end play. It does not at all give a noob a high change to beat a skilled player. In fact the 'noob friendly' entry level features of this game do nothing but enhance the future of competitive play. 1) Noobs who can play are more likely to be interested in watching and supporting the pro-scene due to mass interest, which in term gives more sponsorship opportunities to tournaments. 2) By giving the game a intuitive and user friendly mechanics you don't scare people away. More players willing to play means more players who may eventually become interested in the competitive scene which means more potential Boxers in the future. So in the end the only reason this may hurt you is because someone else is not turned off by bad mechanics, learns and becomes better than you. Skill ceiling is the opposite of noob friendly. There is no correlation. They are the opposite ends of the spectrum. When more high end players get off their high horse about this there will be better progression. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote: SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler + Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding Unlike Terran(weakest in sc1/what i palyed) Protoss is the weakest race now The roles have been changed my friend | ||
|
agleed.agleed
Germany110 Posts
| ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:51 Darpinion wrote: I don't disagree that they're not as far apart as BW, but I would say they're further apart than a lot of people are making it sound like. I'm not the greatest player - a lower level diamond at best and a C- SC/BW ICCup player, and people that are two leagues below me on the ladder I dominate at macro because I understand timing much better than they do (i.e. when to expand and how frequently). hmm, yeah i guess your right. I actually think what a lot of people forget about, is that your macro skill depends on your opponents ability to micro their units, and their ability to force you to focus on micro and disrupt your macro. for example if you play someone with insanely good probe harass, it can sometimes make you forget to build a pylon for a few extra seconds, while you are protecting your base.(well at least it's like that for me when i play a much stronger opponent) So if your opponents micro and multitasking correlates with your macro ability. Then your macro actually depends on both micro and macro. | ||
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote: Games can certainly be too easy if you're looking for a rich experience. Take checkers for example.... fun at first, but then you'd just rather play chess. Or Go (which is simpler than Chess and much deeper). Checkers is not a rich experience because there aren't enough permutations to create enough variability game-to-game. Where SC2 lies in the grand scheme of RTS (or compared to BW) will mostly depend on these permutations and variability in play. It won't be because of silly things like automine or MBS. It will come out in the meta game, and we'll know after enough time has passed how deep it really is. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
sc2 isnt sc1, as soon as the new stuff stops coming its gonna be mastered just bam like that because imagine having perfect mechanics in sc1, copy progamers and now ur all set, seriously whats left to do? figure out a way how to cut an expense here and there? its details ppl figure out in days of practice. in sc2 u can copy them even easier getting 500 reps per week from tournaments so its arguable just as much easier from a "smart guy" point of view as a "robot mechanics" point of view. this is what i think anyway but the patches r making the game better, but i think the idea itself of removing a huge element such as mechanics from a rts is gonna make a negative impact on esport. in sc1 mechanics were just as big of a deal to master and now u have that cut off almost entirely, wow thats a load off :/ | ||
|
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
SC2 is easy relative to SC:BW. SC2 is very hard relative to a lot of other games. Also, when people make these comparisons, they're generally talking about mechanics; quality of life improvements like automine and infinite selection. Having easier mechanics doesn't mean it's a worse game though. We have yet to see how top tier strategies and the metagame will develop like it did in Broodwar. Here again, difficulty is relative. Here it's relative to your opponent. As long as there is someone better than you, either mechanically or strategically, you really can't say the game is easy. In the end, as long as the more skilled player wins (almost) every time, the game can be perfectly competitive. This holds true in SC2, and there is TONS of room, albeit understandably less than in BW(where there is HOLYSHITONS of room), for players to improve. SC2 is easier than SC:BW, but then again, pretty much every game is. Competitive SC2 will do just fine. | ||
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
| ||
|
Meldrath
United States620 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 There are no weak races my friend only weak players. Don't start the rock paper scissors argument it failed in the past it will fail here. | ||
|
Bandreus
Italy69 Posts
| ||
|
Qwerty.
United States292 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15661 Posts
I can guarantee you this much: The average Diamond player will never be an even match for a professional level player. The fact is, no point anyone could make about why SC2 is easier than BW matters. Its all completely and totally irrelevant until it makes everyone play just as well and have all the same results. That isn't the case. And it never will be. Most of the times people bring up this topic when they feel like they should be better than more people but they aren't. Or some friend of theirs who was worse than them at game x is suddenly better than them at game y. So then they say that game y is easier. When in reality, the friend just put a bunch more time into game y. We're already seeing people from all sorts of backgrounds doing well and poorly in SC2. I know people who were B in ICCUP who I would have a substantial advantage over in SC2. By the same token, I have a friend who never took an RTS game seriously, and started playing SC2 a TON. He's a Diamond level player now. Not to say that's anything fancy, but its him doing something that a lot of BW players failed to do. Why? Because he played more and tried harder. People get too caught up in how good or bad they were at some point in the past. Mindsets change, circumstances change, everything changes. And a lot of people who were good at one thing tend to feel some sense of entitlement to be good at everything else. | ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
| ||
|
goswser
United States3519 Posts
| ||
|
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
On July 15 2010 12:14 Mohdoo wrote: As long as someone is able to practice and become better, there is no "problem" with "easy" or "hard". Good players will always find a way to get better and better at a game. Quoted for emphasis. People keep throwing around this "skill-cap" term as if it can be reached. It can't. It is not humanly possible to play a perfect game of SC. That goes for SC1 AND SC2. As long as there is room for improvement (ALWAYS), this game will be competitive. | ||
|
Onlinejaguar
Australia2823 Posts
| ||
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
Hell, most people still mass all their units in one control group. I'm sure that will be about as popular in a year as queueing units is now. Notice how nobody complains about queueing units? Oh that's right, that was in BW, for lower skilled players to make units without having to check their base constantly. And it proved to be a detriment at top level play. I'm guessing as time goes on more things like this will become apparent in SC2. Just give it time. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
sc1 had tons of back and forth micro battles that took long time and were so exciting because of units like lurker. the baneling is just attack move and either u stand and fight or u stim and run away. theres no dancing in sc2 which imo is a core part of micromanagement ~Morrow so ya sc2 sucks. scbw > sc2 no question. anyone with half a brain knows this. sc2 will be dead in 3 years, becuase by then everything will be figured out, and the mechanics will be capped- becuase korean pros are 13241324134 times better than foreigners. also- when i hear tales of D icup players getting in diamond league i lol | ||
|
Reason.SC2
Canada1047 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote: Games can certainly be too easy if you're looking for a rich experience. Take checkers for example.... fun at first, but then you'd just rather play chess. Yes but I think it would be silly to compare SC2 to checkers. Checkers is easy to play perfectly even for someone of average IQ after several dozen matches. SC2 is not. On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote: Have you seen the IdrA interview by d.Apollo? IdrA predicts that there will be much more equity in skill at the highest levels of play this time around. ok but does that prove that SC2 is *too easy*? On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote: You're right in saying this game hasn't come close to the "skill cap" you keep describing... like it's some sort of wow stat like hit rating or something... I thought that it is common knowledge that as a game is played competitively over a long period of time that the game evolves as strategies are refined. I think its inevitable that the level of play will improve the longer people have been playing the game... On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote: ... but you're off base by complaining about "elitists." This is a competitive game. People are out to beat you. People are out to be better than you. That's what this multiplayer experience is about. There's nothing elitist in wanting to win in a competitive atmosphere. Declaring that a game is "too easy" makes the implication that you have played and mastered it in an inordinately short amount of time. I think this sort of statement reflects an over-inflated ego of some mid-to high level players as we can all agree that nobody has mastered the game at this stage. On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote: No, if you magically froze IdrA and WhiteRa you would NOT see random diamond players rise up to their skill in 2-3 months. You have no idea how much better they are than you. Well if you are right about this then that goes to reinforce my point that SC2 is not too easy. As we have established the only way in which a competitive game can be too easy if it is so simple that 'perfect play' is relatively easily attainable, thus being a top player did not require any exceptional amount of skill, talent, or work/practice. Since you claim that a 95th percentile player is sooo much worse than the top players, (a sentiment with which i partially agree - i just think that people will improve rather quickly), that would mean the skill ceiling of this game is quite high wouldn't it? | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 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 Tell that to Flash. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
I remember how miserable it was fighting carriers without charon boosters in vanilla SC. I can't imagine original Starcraft without lurkers, corsairs, DTs and medics. How about ultralisk upgrades? Just sit back and reflect upon how much the game changed when the Broodwar expansion was released. Now we get the benefit of 2 expansions adding to content and I think the new developers at Blizzard will have a better idea what the community expects of starcraft through the trial and error involved in the creating of SC2. Just picture what chess would be like without knights and bishops. As long as Blizzard knows how to balance the new units so the older ones don't become obsolete, we'll have plenty to look forward to. That's where upgrades come into play, to give some of the weaker, older units a boost in order to keep up with the newer more powerful ones. In the end, it will add enormous amounts of depth to a game that already has a lot of potential to see metagame changes for years to come. The "big picture" that we will see when this game has finally evolved years down the road will be staggering in it's full scale. | ||
|
Polygamy
Austria1114 Posts
| ||
|
happyness
United States2400 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 True | ||
|
virgozero
Canada412 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 ANY GAME is easy to play. What makes broodwar hard to play? Just because there are more things to do doesn't make the game HARDEr it makes it more tedious. | ||
|
QueueQueue
Canada1000 Posts
On July 15 2010 12:28 Misrah wrote: so ya sc2 sucks. scbw > sc2 no question. anyone with half a brain knows this. To insult the intelligence of the people who's opinion differs from your own on the preference of a video game is absolutely ridiculous. It simply makes your argument look like a resentful lash out at SC2 as a opposed to a credible argument. I think it's premature to draw drastic conclusions of the longevity of the game in relation to it's predecessor. I loved SC : BW, and still do. I watch all the pro matches and follow the leagues. I also enjoy SC2, as do ALOT of respected members of the TL community. Both games have a lot of differences, and I like them both for a lot of the same and a lot of different reasons. | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
to say anything that you're not #1 at is easy is just stupid. | ||
|
Kashll
United States1117 Posts
On July 15 2010 12:30 Reason.SC2 wrote: Yes but I think it would be silly to compare SC2 to checkers. Checkers is easy to play perfectly even for someone of average IQ after several dozen matches. SC2 is not. Lol no it isn't. Granted it's much less deep than chess but still.. | ||
|
Leeoku
1617 Posts
| ||
|
apm66
Canada943 Posts
On July 15 2010 13:36 Leeoku wrote: it is so much easier in comparison to broodwar due to smarter engine. however it still takes so much effort /practice to master Not just that. The fact that you can assign 200 units under one single hotkey makes things easier. | ||
|
Thenas
Sweden107 Posts
I'd say kicking a ball into a square is quite "noob friendly" aswell yet here we just had WGs in football/soccer. It's what you make of it. | ||
|
squaremanhole
United States82 Posts
On July 15 2010 13:09 virgozero wrote: ANY GAME is easy to play. What makes broodwar hard to play? Just because there are more things to do doesn't make the game HARDEr it makes it more tedious. Fine, hard to play well? Why are we even arguing semantics, you know what he means. | ||
|
QueueQueue
Canada1000 Posts
On July 15 2010 13:38 apm66 wrote: Not just that. The fact that you can assign 200 units under one single hotkey makes things easier. You can do that; but you really don't want to. You can queue up units in BW to make macro easier, but as everyone knows, it is not optimal. Hotkey groups moved clumped. Having a 200 food army clumped in not optimal in so many situations in SC2. | ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
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. | ||
|
nka203
United States102 Posts
| ||
|
scojac
United States99 Posts
it's just awesome that, no matter what your skill level, blizz has made an attempt to have you matched up against people who are around your skill level and will provide you with an interesting challenge. | ||
|
apm66
Canada943 Posts
On July 15 2010 13:46 QueueQueue wrote: You can do that; but you really don't want to. You can queue up units in BW to make macro easier, but as everyone knows, it is not optimal. Hotkey groups moved clumped. Having a 200 food army clumped in not optimal in so many situations in SC2. I know. I'm just making a comparison with BW. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
rockslave
Brazil318 Posts
| ||
|
virgozero
Canada412 Posts
On July 15 2010 13:41 squaremanhole wrote: Fine, hard to play well? Why are we even arguing semantics, you know what he means. im very sorrry | ||
|
Tenryu
United States565 Posts
| ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On July 15 2010 13:52 scojac wrote: the best part about sc2, imho, is the ladder system. i'm not going to get into whether or not there should be MBS or automine or whatever else makes the game "easier" than BW. it's just awesome that, no matter what your skill level, blizz has made an attempt to have you matched up against people who are around your skill level and will provide you with an interesting challenge. icup does that with out b net 2.fail | ||
|
Tenryu
United States565 Posts
On July 15 2010 12:05 MorroW wrote: but i think the idea itself of removing a huge element such as mechanics from a rts is gonna make a negative impact on esport. in sc1 mechanics were just as big of a deal to master and now u have that cut off almost entirely, wow thats a load off :/ I completely agree with u there. Its Blizzard, they dont give a fuck bout eSports, they just want money. And what better then a very loooooong awaited sequel that is very appealing and simple for new users to get into. | ||
|
TimmyMac
Canada499 Posts
so THATS why I get stomped by 300apm guys in D level... | ||
|
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 States8087 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 States8087 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. | ||
|
pieisamazing
United States1234 Posts
I was never good at brood war. I played iccup, but not for very long. I was MAYBE D+ if I had stuck around, but I have to say that I have way more fun playing brood war than this. I wasn't good at all, but there was something it has that this game does not. Noob-friendly? Maybe. I can't identify the factors that make brood war better... but there's... something. | ||
|
mangina
United States230 Posts
Starcraft 2 as of now seems too user friendly. I like how it was said. "Easy to play, hard to master. Whereas BW was hard to play and hard to master" - cr4ckshot And a lot of this sort of opinion has been springing up. A lot of people say how the game mechanics have gotten easier for a lot of people. Personally, I miss BroodWar and I wish there was a lot more micro like how it used to be. Instead, there's a lot more macro (which im fine). Its turned into a game of endurance. I find myself getting easy wins when the game progresses pass 40 mins. Most of these players cannot catch up. | ||
|
omninmo
2349 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. OP, you have been challenged son. Defend yourself. Is the game too easy to win? Or is it too easy to lose? | ||
|
NATO
United States459 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 /agree | ||
|
GoDannY
Germany442 Posts
On July 15 2010 15:48 Angra wrote: I keep finding SC2 less and less fun to play as time goes on and I'm not sure I can place my finger on why exactly. I think it being way too easy to be decent at (but then still hard to master) may be a part of it, as part of the fun of BW was trying to reach the ridiculously high skill level of the "average" player. Going back to BW after playing SC2 a lot, I've been having a TON of fun just playing games out regularly. It just feels like there's so much more that you're doing at any given time and it feels a lot more challenging to just keep up with the other player. 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 I'm not intending to offend your feelings or rants towards SC2, but dont you think that kind of thinking is a little bit... uhm... tunneled? To be honest, sometimes I felt like this, too - especially when I 2vs2 for fun. People tend to go - for instance - marauder only - what is a good response to that? A shitload of Immortals of course (or void rays). But when I play against some practice partners and I go like "hey I could totally afford a warp prism here" or "blink to the cliff would have been totally baller right now". I think the problem with that is, if you are laddering a lot its a bit the same over and over again. For some reason many players want to grind as many games as possible during beta to get an advantage on release and do forget that bad habits die hard. Instead of keeping an eye on the most baller units in the game (remember when vultures and spider mines were quite unpopular?) like Blink Stalker or Raven or Banelings or whatever - they keep using the same units like a lot. I guess Day9 had a good point in his episode #154. I'm pretty sure the game will evolve A LOT on release and the month after - especially when the add-ons are coming in. Back 2 topic 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. Couldnt have said it better myself, exactly what I feel about it. Besides, regarding the mechanics I think we are still far from flawless gameplay anyway. Even "top" players right now stack up energy on chrone/queen/command (because of scan no big deal for terran tough) or have flaws in their economy already - it's still a long way to go before we actualy can call someone having a very "smooth" gameplay. | ||
|
RaiZ
2813 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:53 Sadistx wrote: These threads have been popping up since before the beta. If you think the game is too easy, you either need to play better people or just stop playing. Or like IdrA said, if the game is SOOO easy, how come aren't you winning tournaments? Wait what ? Since when winning tournaments is part of the skill assuming the game is too easy for everyone to play ? I mean, if the game was easy then everyone would have a chance to win a tournament. Which seems to be true because i'm always seeing a different winner. So i'm not sure if the game is really that hard to master. | ||
|
ChoboCop
United States954 Posts
They took everything that makes bw great(no not the small control groups, bad ai, bad netcode, useless units, graphics, etc), strategy, and improved the small things that makes BW antiquated. (hate nascar)Do you think a Nascar driver should have to get out and change his own tires? I feel the sentiment of nostalgia, but you guys should realize that if you truly are masters of RTS than adaptation would be your strongest suit. Don't be afraid of change, embrace it, and thank blizzard for making a game that will give you more noobs to beat on, new strategies, and a better overall gaming experience. Alas, I know some of you just HAVE to do your own car repair, plumbing, ditch digging, worker splitting... it makes you feel a sense of accomplishment. But, many more people have embraced the idea that you can retain the things that are important to you(strategy) while eliminating the distractions(extra mechanical apm). | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
But as it's clear that Blizzard won't change anything of that, we can just hope that ppl figure out nice micro-tricks comparable to mutastacking in BW. Or we can w8 until crafty modders bring us SC2 ProMod. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10686 Posts
Lurker, Reaver, Vulture. Everything else is either similar in SC2 or actually *more* interesting in SC2. It's just that this 3 key units made for very exciting situations, all the other *possibilities* and plenty more are theoretically also in SC2. Everything else? It's the same or more exciting. Btw: Remove and replace Roach, Marauder, Immortal, Colossus... They are BOOORING (but as borign as Dragoons  ).Btw2: Get over the Muta stacking thing... Yes, it was really, really, really important in SC/BW and it was really, really exciting... But... It's gone, just get over it... Thor's would end it quickly anyway .This is a Beta and it's back on since... Not even a week? Your complaining is pretty ridiculous when you think of that... | ||
|
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On the surface, it may seem simple. However, there are a lot of things that make the game difficult to master. | ||
|
funk100
United Kingdom172 Posts
| ||
|
brinbran
United States52 Posts
| ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
Nothing you can do in sc2 can compare to the macro/micro combination that BW allowed for. Sure all games evolve and people learn to play better, but sc2 isn't exactly a fresh game, it's the sequel to one of the most analyzed games of all time. It is similar in concept in many ways, but feels like a dumbed down version of it, which isn't surprising, because blizzard has shifted to profit > quality and they want this game to have mass appeal to casuals. I predict blizzard will simply make crazy changes to balance here and there to keep the game feeling fresh, much like they do with world of warcraft, because it is an effective, though tacky, method of keeping people playing. A lot of the "top" sc2 players who defend the game to death compared to bw, do it because they can't really make a huge dent in the BW scene, of course they are going to promote a game they have a headstart on and are currently considered "top" caliber at. This game has too many direct counters which basically forces you down set routes if you want to be efficient in dealing with an enemy army of certain compositions. Not that other games don't have efficient counter strats, but it is so straight forward and direct in sc2 so that even a 5 year old can understand it. | ||
|
Doko
Argentina1737 Posts
The only thing that gives some sort of control over an area are siege tanks. Don't get me started on marauders. Its like blizzard employees were doing weed and booze, designed the unit and the next day everyone was afraid of saying the unit is complete bullshit cause it might have been the boss's idea.. so it just stayed in. | ||
|
Panoptic
United Kingdom515 Posts
| ||
|
TTL
65 Posts
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 >_< | ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
| ||
|
Panoptic
United Kingdom515 Posts
On July 15 2010 19:11 Ghad wrote: When the guys like White-Ra, TLO, Tester, Idra, Day9 and so on and so forth starts to talk about a low skill cap I will take notice, until then I truly believe this is all hot air. You're aware that was the point the OP was making? | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On July 15 2010 19:11 Ghad wrote: When the guys like White-Ra, TLO, Tester, Idra, Day9 and so on and so forth starts to talk about a low skill cap I will take notice, until then I truly believe this is all hot air. It wouldn't make sense for them to openly criticize a game in that context that they are trying to make money off of. | ||
|
lFrost
United States295 Posts
On July 15 2010 18:29 robertdinh wrote: SC2 is definitely easier for people to be considered good at. It simply requires a lot less overall than BW does/did. Nothing you can do in sc2 can compare to the macro/micro combination that BW allowed for. Sure all games evolve and people learn to play better, but sc2 isn't exactly a fresh game, it's the sequel to one of the most analyzed games of all time. It is similar in concept in many ways, but feels like a dumbed down version of it, which isn't surprising, because blizzard has shifted to profit > quality and they want this game to have mass appeal to casuals. I predict blizzard will simply make crazy changes to balance here and there to keep the game feeling fresh, much like they do with world of warcraft, because it is an effective, though tacky, method of keeping people playing. A lot of the "top" sc2 players who defend the game to death compared to bw, do it because they can't really make a huge dent in the BW scene, of course they are going to promote a game they have a headstart on and are currently considered "top" caliber at. This game has too many direct counters which basically forces you down set routes if you want to be efficient in dealing with an enemy army of certain compositions. Not that other games don't have efficient counter strats, but it is so straight forward and direct in sc2 so that even a 5 year old can understand it. this post is right on the dot. exactly how i feel about sc2, a dumb down version of bw that is a lot easier to play in order to make rts appealing to more noobs. after playing beta since the first week of phase 1 i have gotten bored of the game many times, which made me switch main races twice so that now I have mained all 3 before. i feel like it is way too easy to master sc2 mechanics and have very good macro, compared to bw, which is what makes this game uninteresting. when many people are able to master this game easily, there is no easy way to differentiate yourself from others or lesser people anymore like in bw. edit: also i have hit 2k+ plat in phase 1 while maintaining 2.5:1 ratio and diamond later while maining two races so i am not complaining because i suck at this game or something. watching proleague/osl/msl nowadays is a lot more interesting than the showmatches they are playing on sc2 | ||
|
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
Canada5416 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. | ||
|
Dystisis
Norway713 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote: SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler + Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding That is not true at all. Protoss may be "easy" to get into, but the ceiling for strategies, mechanics and control for Protoss is nowhere near reached. I think Protoss is the least explored race when it comes to strategies and general dynamics, and I think it will also be the one that takes the most skill to perfect. | ||
|
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
On July 15 2010 23:01 Dystisis wrote: That is not true at all. Protoss may be "easy" to get into, but the ceiling for strategies, mechanics and control for Protoss is nowhere near reached. I think Protoss is the least explored race when it comes to strategies and general dynamics, and I think it will also be the one that takes the most skill to perfect. I agree with you. I think it's just because the generally accepted truth was that Protoss was the easiest in BW, and people seem to think that carries over, but I don't think it does. | ||
|
palanq
United States761 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote: SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler + Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding ouch, my butt T_T also aren't there enough threads like this already? =/ | ||
|
revy
United States1524 Posts
| ||
|
Zoltan
United States656 Posts
| ||
|
Juaks
United States384 Posts
QUOTE]On July 15 2010 22:47 Nemesis wrote: 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. [/QUOTE] I think is very naive and unfair to compare those gosu moves and exciting moments of BW to SC2 beta. I am sure we will see awesome moves and tense moments like those you described, once the pro scene starts digging SC2. Just give it some time. 2 expansions to come. Let the meta evolve. | ||
|
gREIFOCs
Argentina208 Posts
But to talk about interface, is better to agree what the game is really about. For me, Starcraft is a strategy game. A mean of comunication with the other player trough movements on the map, buildorders, responses, reactions, tactics and overall strategy. If we agree that Starcraft is about Strategy and not really, about clicking the right buttons in the right time for the solely skill of remembering to push buttons. Yes, a we spend a lot of time perfecting the way we interact with Brood War. But that is because BW was so counter intuitive, so demanding, so harsh. It required some sort of skill? Yes. But, having limited amount of CRTL+Units in a group, having to constantly split workers, ect, are not strategic skill. Those are mechanics skill sets. Is the RTS equivalent of grind. Of course, reality imposes a mechanic way of interaction with the game. But the smoother the experience, the better the representation of the mind inside the game. That is the symbolic underline of the game. That's why I like so much Zerg vs Zerg now. Watch the Sen vs Hydra game, and see the way they spread creep. Look at that minimap, and then tell me what you see. Look the back-forth movements prior to the last battle. Admire how organic, how live is the interaction between the armies. Compare it with a stand down in nature (choose your species). In those moments, neither player where defending expos, or drones. They where fighting for the level of representation of their brains inside the game. They where fighting for identity. They where fighting to make the map, more a place of their mind and less a place of the mind of their opponent. That is why when you throw someone off their game, is so effective. When you deny map control, you are denying existance. When you force your opponent into something, you are forcing him to live a reality that is far appart from what it should be in their mind. A game that allows such subtle interactions between two beings is something to be praised. | ||
|
AtomicTon
United States103 Posts
This holds true for everyone playing. Everyone has the same commands to use, tricks to play, etc. The playing field is different, but level, you know? Ok, so it's easier to play. Then it's easier to play for everyone. If anything, this means it's easier to get better and get to a plateau, where veryone else is, meaning extremely balanced games. Even if there is a cieling where the top players get to, but don't get better, as long as everyone is at the cieling, the game will still be ridiculously competitive! Know what I'm saying? Just because it's easier for "noobs" to jump in and play, top tier players will still ultimately be in the same tier, thus creating even, tense and skill intensive games. I feel like I can't explain myself well enough right now, but basically it boils down tothis: everyone that plays SC2, is playing SC2. The playing field is the same for everyone. It's NOT SC1, but we aren't PLAYING SC1. The competition will still be great, and intense, as everyone is playing with the same deck of cards, but have different hands, or maybe different playstyles and poker faces, know what I'm sayin? | ||
|
Piski
Finland3461 Posts
| ||
|
kekeque
Canada68 Posts
| ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On July 15 2010 12:28 Misrah wrote: in the words of morrow: sc1 had tons of back and forth micro battles that took long time and were so exciting because of units like lurker. the baneling is just attack move and either u stand and fight or u stim and run away. theres no dancing in sc2 which imo is a core part of micromanagement ~Morrow so ya sc2 sucks. scbw > sc2 no question. anyone with half a brain knows this. sc2 will be dead in 3 years, becuase by then everything will be figured out, and the mechanics will be capped- becuase korean pros are 13241324134 times better than foreigners. also- when i hear tales of D icup players getting in diamond league i lol I'd be willing to bet my life savings that SC2 won't be dead in 3 years.. seriously. PM me I'm really willing to bet like thousands of dollars on this lol... IMO your the one with half a brain for making a statement like that.. | ||
|
Darpinion
United States210 Posts
On July 15 2010 16:24 omninmo wrote: OP, you have been challenged son. Defend yourself. Is the game too easy to win? Or is it too easy to lose? lulzy assessment. | ||
|
Darpinion
United States210 Posts
On July 15 2010 22:40 Liquid`Jinro wrote: 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? Wasn't aware of an original - apologies. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
USn
United States376 Posts
On July 15 2010 23:53 gREIFOCs wrote: People don't realize what a interface is really supposed to do. The interface is a language, which the player must interiorizate, make his own. Is a system to represent your brain inside the game. That's naive. The interface doesn't represent some mystical confluence between the mind and software. When you are playing a game, you are playing the interface just like you play any other part of the game. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
On July 16 2010 06:29 DannyJ wrote: It's definitely "easier" to play than brood war. Does that mean it's easier to win vs other people? Of course not. ^^ It's easier to "do stuff" but not easier to win^^ | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On July 15 2010 23:53 gREIFOCs wrote: People don't realize what a interface is really supposed to do. The interface is a language, which the player must interiorizate, make his own. Is a system to represent your brain inside the game. The more crisp, smooth and intuitive this system is, the better the representation of yourself within the game. But to talk about interface, is better to agree what the game is really about. For me, Starcraft is a strategy game. A mean of comunication with the other player trough movements on the map, buildorders, responses, reactions, tactics and overall strategy. If we agree that Starcraft is about Strategy and not really, about clicking the right buttons in the right time for the solely skill of remembering to push buttons. Yes, a we spend a lot of time perfecting the way we interact with Brood War. But that is because BW was so counter intuitive, so demanding, so harsh. It required some sort of skill? Yes. But, having limited amount of CRTL+Units in a group, having to constantly split workers, ect, are not strategic skill. Those are mechanics skill sets. Is the RTS equivalent of grind. Of course, reality imposes a mechanic way of interaction with the game. But the smoother the experience, the better the representation of the mind inside the game. That is the symbolic underline of the game. That's why I like so much Zerg vs Zerg now. Watch the Sen vs Hydra game, and see the way they spread creep. Look at that minimap, and then tell me what you see. Look the back-forth movements prior to the last battle. Admire how organic, how live is the interaction between the armies. Compare it with a stand down in nature (choose your species). In those moments, neither player where defending expos, or drones. They where fighting for the level of representation of their brains inside the game. They where fighting for identity. They where fighting to make the map, more a place of their mind and less a place of the mind of their opponent. That is why when you throw someone off their game, is so effective. When you deny map control, you are denying existance. When you force your opponent into something, you are forcing him to live a reality that is far appart from what it should be in their mind. A game that allows such subtle interactions between two beings is something to be praised. Morpheus, is that you? Jokes aside, let me say: what a nice take on the function of an interface and how making it more accessible provides for greater emphasis on strategy. | ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:53 Sadistx wrote: These threads have been popping up since before the beta. If you think the game is too easy, you either need to play better people or just stop playing. Or like IdrA said, if the game is SOOO easy, how come aren't you winning tournaments? That last line was very simple almost childish logic. His comment actu!lly answers your question anyway. He does not do as well because his mechanical superiority is not offering as much of a difference as in bw. Making i5 harder for him to win as he cannot distinguish himself well enough. Tha5 would be the answer to that | ||
|
susySquark
United States1692 Posts
| ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 16 2010 00:21 AtomicTon wrote: You have to realize just because some mechanics of the game might seem "easier" or "noob friendly" This holds true for everyone playing. Everyone has the same commands to use, tricks to play, etc. The playing field is different, but level, you know? Ok, so it's easier to play. Then it's easier to play for everyone. If anything, this means it's easier to get better and get to a plateau, where veryone else is, meaning extremely balanced games. Even if there is a cieling where the top players get to, but don't get better, as long as everyone is at the cieling, the game will still be ridiculously competitive! Know what I'm saying? Just because it's easier for "noobs" to jump in and play, top tier players will still ultimately be in the same tier, thus creating even, tense and skill intensive games. I feel like I can't explain myself well enough right now, but basically it boils down tothis: everyone that plays SC2, is playing SC2. The playing field is the same for everyone. It's NOT SC1, but we aren't PLAYING SC1. The competition will still be great, and intense, as everyone is playing with the same deck of cards, but have different hands, or maybe different playstyles and poker faces, know what I'm sayin? the problem when you lower the playing field, is that the players of lesser skill benefit, where as the players of good skill, do not. + Show Spoiler + No, actually, that's not the case at all. When a game is made easier overall, players do not benefit equally. When a game is made easier overall, players at a lower skill level benefit much more from the change than players at a higher skill level. Example: If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer. Example 2: If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for everyone. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer. These two examples deal with narrowing the skill gap in a given activity by making it easier for everyone. People bring this point up all the time: "Yeah, Source is easier, but it's easier for everyone, so it doesn't matter" - NO. Wrong. The fact that when a game is easier, it's easier for everyone, is totally irrelevant in the Source/1.6 discourse. The relevant question is, "who benefits from Source being easier?" And obviously, just as a basketball player who couldn't hit as many shots with a smaller hoop would benefit more from a doubled rim diameter than Kobe Bryant would, and a DDR player who couldn't beat "expert" would benefit more from moving down to "medium" than a player would could already beat "expert" would, gamers who can't play at the top level in CS 1.6 benefit more from moving to Source (the easier game of the two; a game with bigger targets, easier guns, relatively slower movement, and stronger flashbangs) than the gamers who already could play at the highest level in 1.6 do. This is why it's called "narrowing the skill gap", because all of a sudden, there is tight competition, where before, there was no tight competition. Everyone in Counter-Strike culture knows that Source players cannot transition to 1.6, while 1.6 players can transition to Source, and that if a team like Hyper were to play a team like coL in 1.6, it would be an absolute blowout. But in Source, since the skill gap has been narrowed, there's legitimate competition all of a sudden. The teams are at the same level. This is because, when a game is made easier, even though it's easier for everyone, the change serves to level the playing field, because players of a lower skill level benefit more from the change than players of a higher skill level. there is a good post by Alex "chibsquad" Garfield from Team Evil Genius. | ||
|
Phayze
Canada2029 Posts
| ||
|
MindRush
Romania916 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. MBS and MUS (multiple building selection and multiple unit selection) is normal for a year-2010 game Come on, people, you don't really expect to play SC2 like you played BW (checkout some past threads on this forum) It is easier to macro now, but Blizzard introduced some nice and logic ways to make macro a bit more difficult (mules, queens, crono) - which make sense and don't seem dumb and boring. Also, choosing from mule-scan-supplydrop, or spawnlarvae-heal-creeptumor or choosing which building to chrono boost is as much macro as it is strategical choice. The game is fine as it is | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 16 2010 06:59 Phayze wrote: Good read, but i disagree with the transition from source to 1.6. Theres a little bit of elitism in his statement, and really there are tons of teams who went back from source to 1.6. this was in written in 2007, before the exodus, and only 1 source player really made it out, moE, who had past 1.6 (cal-p) experience. | ||
|
pieisamazing
United States1234 Posts
Adding a couple hitpoints here, reducing build time there, is not going to fix the game. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
Example: If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer. I'd say this analogy is flawed and was created to illustrate his notion that lowering the mechanical interface of starcraft benefits the lower skilled player. A better analogy to illustrate the leveling of the mechanical aspect of basketball would be to have every player have the same physical fitness and performance potential. That way we would see who the best player was by his strategy, tactics, and teamwork, rather than just his physical prowess. Basketball, however, is a physical and team sport, while starcraft is a strategy game. It would only make perfect sense to reduce the mechanical and physical limitations in order to emphasize just that--the strategical aspect of starcraft. | ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
On July 16 2010 07:06 pieisamazing wrote: "The game is a BETA" is no longer an argument. This game comes out in less than two weeks and you think all of these problems are going to disappear at release? Give me a break. Adding a couple hitpoints here, reducing build time there, is not going to fix the game. What exactly is wrong with the game? For a 1.0 release the game is pretty damn solid. I'd say it's about as good as we could expect. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 16 2010 07:19 vesicular wrote: What exactly is wrong with the game? For a 1.0 release the game is pretty damn solid. I'd say it's about as good as we could expect. agreed. I think SC2:WoL is in a better state than Starcraft vanilla, and they can continue to work on it after it's released and make it immensely better like what they did from SC to BW, WC3 to TFT. | ||
|
[RB]Black
United States55 Posts
Look at early SC. it was dominated by wc2 players from kali in the early parts. | ||
|
Grond
599 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote: SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler + Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding Isn't Protoss far less than 33% of the top players? | ||
|
Valikyr
Sweden2653 Posts
The skill of the very top players now will probarbly be your average diamond/high platinum player in a year. | ||
|
EliteAzn
United States661 Posts
It's nice to have a game that people who are new to rts's can pick up...however ease in play depends on the competition (I believe this has been said a bunch of times...because it's true) I like the game how it is...now it's just balancing and such (which it's almost there...just need more gameplay/data) | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 16 2010 07:13 Nagano wrote: I'd say this analogy is flawed and was created to illustrate his notion that lowering the mechanical interface of starcraft benefits the lower skilled player. A better analogy to illustrate the leveling of the mechanical aspect of basketball would be to have every player have the same physical fitness and performance potential. That way we would see who the best player was by his strategy, tactics, and teamwork, rather than just his physical prowess. Basketball, however, is a physical and team sport, while starcraft is a strategy game. It would only make perfect sense to reduce the mechanical and physical limitations in order to emphasize just that--the strategical aspect of starcraft. We arent talking about basketball, we are talking about a game of horse, and the analogy was clearly made 3 years prior to the release of sc2, so it definitely was not created to illustrate a specific point, especially about starcraft. You sure do sound smart though. | ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:49 Ballistixz wrote: ^ this pretty much sums it up. sc2 is easy for ppl just starting out, but ull never get to be a top player unless u practice practice practice. in sc1 it was hard for anyone to get into, and once u finnaly did master the controls u still had hell of a long way to go to get any good at the game. Really SC1 before broodwar, upon release was like this? I highly doubt that. Maybe broodwar post ICCup, but SC2 will be hard to get into 5 years down the line as well I'm sure. | ||
|
Keitzer
United States2509 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 This.... kinda same with a lot of other games/stuff i've played and heard of over the years like chess, it's easy to learn the pieces, but very hard to become great at playing Chess | ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
Have we seen any player REALLY play at the level that SCBW Korean pros play? NONONO. They are playing SMART at the moment, and they have good macro. Do they consantly harass with drops all freagin game? Do they constantly move back and move back in damaged units? Are zerg players using queens to heal their units during fights in the middle of the map while also moving the units, while harassing a mineral line with a drop, while macroing up units, while managing another fight? NO. This is not on the level of SCBW not because of how simple it is to play, but because the game is young. People have to still get adjusted to what safe timings and opportunity windows are out there for things to do. There are plenty of high end pro games currently where both players pretty much just both sit there, occasionally attack, have one big battle, and one loses. That's not how a top Korean pro from the Broodwar scene would play this game, I guarantee you, and they will find a work to make high aggression, high skill cap style play dominant. Stop jumping the gun and crying Fire Fire! And I think people don't realize that if Broodwar allowed you to select infinite units and have better pathing, the game would still require (at high level play) you to have seperate group hotkeys for various reasons. The different group hotkeys isn't because you have to have your hydras in 3 seperate groups due to game restrictions, it also gives you more dynamic control of the units. How come people don't see this? | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On July 16 2010 07:31 Grond wrote: Isn't Protoss far less than 33% of the top players? Protoss is just as difficult if not more now than it is in BW. It's all about time management. Sure you can mbs and automine unlike BW but the same distractions still exist that would keep you from pumping more units or making other decisions. Once maybe someone can reach the skill level Bisu has in BW you'll really start to see how SC2 is the same game mechanics-wise. Some fixes have been made also to some of the cheese from BW that makes life easier for certain matchups but that's a whole other topic. | ||
|
Matiz_pl
Poland163 Posts
There is always room to improve, you can micro your zealot a bit better, you can sneak another drone in the builid, maybe get upgrade earlier or something. For a human being it's imo impossible to do everything perfectly. Therefore there's no need to cry about skill cap, that game will be mastered very soon and we will have ties every game between top players (lol). Yea sc2 is easier than scbw, but it is still very deep game and there will be a lot of room for improvement. Even koreans with they insane skill won't play perfect, because just like in chess, in sc2 you have hundreds of options and BO's and you can't predict them and adapt to them perfectly. | ||
|
UbiNax
Denmark381 Posts
| ||
|
antelope591
Canada820 Posts
| ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
| ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
Do you see one? No? Then play the damn game. You can't know how high the mountain is unless you climb to the top. If you stay at sea level looking into the clouds and speculating you might as well take up knitting. | ||
|
thisblindman
Philippines50 Posts
| ||
|
Esper
United States87 Posts
| ||
|
Tenryu
United States565 Posts
| ||
|
njAl
Norway156 Posts
| ||
|
gruntrush
Canada134 Posts
On July 16 2010 09:56 Redmark wrote: I still think that hypothesizing about a 'skill ceiling' is pointless. Do you see one? No? Then play the damn game. You can't know how high the mountain is unless you climb to the top. If you stay at sea level looking into the clouds and speculating you might as well take up knitting. analogy... too..... corney. *head asplode* | ||
|
Bswhunter
Australia954 Posts
| ||
|
wishbones
Canada2600 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [ranted in my post had to seperate by s…] + Lol as if that is a word.. wtf.. it didnt go red ahaha. im adding NESS to the end of everything even if its in red, if the guy's who decide what words are new for our lives, then fuck if im gonna wait aaround for them to tell me what else i can spell. Screw the dictionary pplz | ||
|
Back
Canada505 Posts
Take the 100m dash. Nothing could be more simple/easy. Start at point A, run to point B. The end. Yet some people dedicate their lives to shaving fractions of a second to their time so they can beat other people trying to do the same. We never go: "well they all finished pretty much at the same time". The race needs a winner. There is no skill cap in competitive sports or esports.People who are willing to work hard to be the best will find ways to edge out the competition. | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 17 2010 01:03 Back wrote: A bigger player pool will increase the "difficulty" more than mechanics ever could as long as your basis is: is it hard to be the best? Take the 100m dash. Nothing could be more simple/easy. Start at point A, run to point B. The end. Yet some people dedicate their lives to shaving fractions of a second to their time so they can beat other people trying to do the same. We never go: "well they all finished pretty much at the same time". The race needs a winner. There is no skill cap in competitive sports or esports.People who are willing to work hard to be the best will find ways to edge out the competition. thats not what people are arguing, people are saying that once the skill cap is lowered, the amount of competition isnt as tight, if sc1 is a 100 m dash, sc2 is like a 100m drag race, the person with the more suped up rig has a better advantage. | ||
|
Sueco
Sweden283 Posts
I applaud this change from Blizzard. Instead of manufacturing clicks due to a terrible 1998 interface, player APM can be focused on truly awesome stuff, like multi-control group attacks on perfect timed simultaneous locations while spamming perfectly placed spells. They lowered the entry barrier by requiring less APM to perform basic macro. This will attract new players, and will foster much more creative and fun unit control at the competitive level. Everybody wins. | ||
|
Back
Canada505 Posts
On July 17 2010 02:23 Holcan wrote: thats not what people are arguing, people are saying that once the skill cap is lowered, the amount of competition isnt as tight, if sc1 is a 100 m dash, sc2 is like a 100m drag race, the person with the more suped up rig has a better advantage. What is the "rig" in this analogy. The computer? | ||
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
| ||
|
Am3692
United States26 Posts
| ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
If SC2 was like that, it would be a huge commercial fail because noone apart of BW players want to play a game that have a 12 years old interface and all of the level requirement that it cause... | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 17 2010 02:32 Back wrote: What is the "rig" in this analogy. The computer? Yes, but thats not the main part, the main part is that most of the preparation doesnt have to be put into the physical skills, it can be put into an outlying force which will have an impact on your performance. SC1 is so old, any computer will run it in good shape, so literally everyone is on a equal playing field, for sc2 its all about upgrading the engine to sell copies, and hopefully for the esports community draw sponsors, but theres a clear advantage to those with a good computer against those with a borderline computer. It wasnt a very good analogy, albeit, one second + Show Spoiler + The fact that when a game is easier, it's easier for everyone, is totally irrelevant in the Source/1.6 discourse. The relevant question is, "who benefits from Source being easier?" And obviously, just as a basketball player who couldn't hit as many shots with a smaller hoop would benefit more from a doubled rim diameter than Kobe Bryant would, and a DDR player who couldn't beat "expert" would benefit more from moving down to "medium" than a player would could already beat "expert" would, gamers who can't play at the top level in CS 1.6 benefit more from moving to Source (the easier game of the two; a game with bigger targets, easier guns, relatively slower movement, and stronger flashbangs) than the gamers who already could play at the highest level in 1.6 do. This is why it's called "narrowing the skill gap", because all of a sudden, there is tight competition, where before, there was no tight competition. Everyone in Counter-Strike culture knows that Source players cannot transition to 1.6, while 1.6 players can transition to Source, and that if a team like Hyper were to play a team like coL in 1.6, it would be an absolute blowout. But in Source, since the skill gap has been narrowed, there's legitimate competition all of a sudden. The teams are at the same level. This is because, when a game is made easier, even though it's easier for everyone, the change serves to level the playing field, because players of a lower skill level benefit more from the change than players of a higher skill level. i hope that clarifies it, i posted this a few pages back, its a quote from Alex "chibsquad" Garfield talking about who benefits when the game is made easier to play, which is clearly the players of lesser skill. My argument is that right now sc2 is so demanding on computers, or even people who good computers have issues, so players with that specific advantage (a good computer, no issues) are more well off. | ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Darpinion
United States210 Posts
On July 16 2010 06:26 USn wrote: That's naive. The interface doesn't represent some mystical confluence between the mind and software. When you are playing a game, you are playing the interface just like you play any other part of the game. Hahah! Thank you. When I read that comment I was a bit flabbergasted. | ||
|
Darpinion
United States210 Posts
On July 16 2010 23:40 Tenryu wrote: No Blizzard is focusing on making the game more appealing and user friendly to attract news users and get more $$ Blizzard has never been about maximizing their revenues as much as Activision is. It's not Blizzard's game anymore. I know they make it and I know they lead in design but when it comes to marketing this game make no mistake about it - Activision is playing the main role in doing that. | ||
|
Nemesis
Canada2568 Posts
On July 16 2010 07:13 Nagano wrote: I'd say this analogy is flawed and was created to illustrate his notion that lowering the mechanical interface of starcraft benefits the lower skilled player. A better analogy to illustrate the leveling of the mechanical aspect of basketball would be to have every player have the same physical fitness and performance potential. That way we would see who the best player was by his strategy, tactics, and teamwork, rather than just his physical prowess. Basketball, however, is a physical and team sport, while starcraft is a strategy game. It would only make perfect sense to reduce the mechanical and physical limitations in order to emphasize just that--the strategical aspect of starcraft. People seem to keep forgetting that RTS are not just strategy games. Note the "real time" part in RTS means that you need control over your units, etc, and not just good strategy to win games. Sure you like the strategy part better, but not everyone does. On July 17 2010 02:31 Sueco wrote: Yes starcraft 2 requires less APM... how many times you said you had beaten White-Ra? I applaud this change from Blizzard. Instead of manufacturing clicks due to a terrible 1998 interface, player APM can be focused on truly awesome stuff, like multi-control group attacks on perfect timed simultaneous locations while spamming perfectly placed spells. They lowered the entry barrier by requiring less APM to perform basic macro. This will attract new players, and will foster much more creative and fun unit control at the competitive level. Everybody wins. Yes, terrible 1998 interface which koreans have turned into a sport, how many modern 2010 RTS games have been as successful as BW? NONE On July 15 2010 23:36 Juaks wrote: I think is very naive and unfair to compare those gosu moves and exciting moments of BW to SC2 beta. I am sure we will see awesome moves and tense moments like those you described, once the pro scene starts digging SC2. Just give it some time. 2 expansions to come. Let the meta evolve. Although it is beta, I doubt that the game will change in 2 weeks after release. At the moment, the units just does not allow those kinds of moves. If someone were to show us those kinds of magic in SC2 then I might get back into it. But at the moment I just do not see that happening. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8087 Posts
On July 17 2010 05:39 Darpinion wrote: Blizzard has never been about maximizing their revenues as much as Activision is. It's not Blizzard's game anymore. I know they make it and I know they lead in design but when it comes to marketing this game make no mistake about it - Activision is playing the main role in doing that. honestly i think blizzard themselves wants to make the game as mass-marketable as possible. they wont dumb it down as much as activision wants but i dont think theyre necessarily giving up much creative freedom at all. this is very much the game they always wanted to make. it's just too bad (for me at least) that they made a lot of these change that i dont like too much. you cant really blame them for wanting as many people as possible to play this game they spent years making. although that doesnt mean we should just stop complaining at all. | ||
|
Stromming
Sweden64 Posts
| ||
|
Schurk
Netherlands47 Posts
On July 15 2010 13:39 Thenas wrote: Yeah I never quite got the "it's to easy" / "noob friendly" arguments. I'd say kicking a ball into a square is quite "noob friendly" aswell yet here we just had WGs in football/soccer. It's what you make of it. this is about as good a point as anyone can make. and basicly any profesional sport out there. grand prix racing for example. a few cars, the one who reaches the finish first wins. that's basicly all the rules. but still, with such simple rules, i don't see everyone becoming the new schumacher. and still, dispite it's simplicity, there's millions and millions of people watching it every sunday. more people than sc2 will ever have. lack of depth doesn't mean it has to be less interesting / exciting | ||
|
Twaxter
Canada190 Posts
I come to Sc2 I'm a high ranked platinum player. (Rank 9ish) <-- This is because I have to face terran more and more I have decent mechanics (200apmish), in both games. I highly agree, Sc2 is nub friendly. I still lose to people who have like 40 apm. | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 17 2010 06:21 Schurk wrote: this is about as good a point as anyone can make. and basicly any profesional sport out there. grand prix racing for example. a few cars, the one who reaches the finish first wins. that's basicly all the rules. but still, with such simple rules, i don't see everyone becoming the new schumacher. and still, dispite it's simplicity, there's millions and millions of people watching it every sunday. more people than sc2 will ever have. lack of depth doesn't mean it has to be less interesting / exciting these are terrible analogies Example: If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer. Example 2: If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for everyone. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer. here are two much better analogies caution, reading this may increase your intelligence, do not be alarmed and attempt to flame me. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
Starcraft asks you both to bake a cake, only you have to light your own fire to the oven. In BW you had to sit there rubbing sticks together and SCII gives you a match. | ||
|
lyk503
United States261 Posts
On July 17 2010 07:29 Jerubaal wrote: More like: Starcraft asks you both to bake a cake, only you have to light your own fire to the oven. In BW you had to sit there rubbing sticks together and SCII gives you a match. In order to properly play this game..... .... you must first invent the universe... | ||
|
CruelZeratul
Germany4588 Posts
On July 17 2010 05:54 Nemesis wrote: Yes, terrible 1998 interface which koreans have turned into a sport, how many modern 2010 RTS games have been as successful as BW? NONE Thats more or less a coincidence that it got that famous in Korea in shouln't be a argument. | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
On July 17 2010 06:31 Twaxter wrote: I was a D+ in Brood war I come to Sc2 I'm a high ranked platinum player. (Rank 9ish) <-- This is because I have to face terran more and more I have decent mechanics (200apmish), in both games. I highly agree, Sc2 is nub friendly. I still lose to people who have like 40 apm. ITT: People who think they're better than they are call a game nub friendly when they can't even make it into Diamond (top 20%). -_- All the pros agree SC2 is a great game, and until you're in their league, I really don't think you have any room to call it a newb-friendly game. | ||
|
lyk503
United States261 Posts
Goes to show how little APM matters when you are spamming. I'm Mid-level diamond player that has around 80-100 APM. | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
But lets not forget that this is the pre-birth. Wer are playing a fetus right now. SC took years and years to develop. I know that you can say that not having to send every harvester to the mineral individually is Noob friendly. But I am sure that in a few years you will need every single action that you can get out of those fingers of yours. As for now lets examine the Marine Marauder Ball. This basically means you put a light unit that can attack both ground and air together with an armored unit that has a bonus versus armor. I cannot imagine that these units wont be separated in different groups to optimize micro. I am sure that in the future you will need a lot of actions and good micro to constantly have good unit placement. The right unit attacking the right unit. And making sure the units are defending each other properly. then there is this delusional advantage of the infinity control group. I am sure that in the future the control groups will be made lots smaller to create more control, instead of these 1a attacks. | ||
|
Back
Canada505 Posts
On July 17 2010 07:21 Holcan wrote: these are terrible analogies here are two much better analogies caution, reading this may increase your intelligence, do not be alarmed and attempt to flame me. You think the better analogy is the one where the two players compete against the program for a higher score instead of against each other? And the basketball one is weird too. If Kobe Bryant had done all his training on a large rim size, it would be a totally different game in which he would destroy you or me just as badly as the smaller rim because that's the basketball he perfected. You act like it would be his first time playing with a giant rim. People playing SC2 won't be caught by surprise, they will have mastered the game the way it is. | ||
|
iNSiPiD1
United States140 Posts
On July 15 2010 14:04 rockslave wrote: Stop thinking about sending scvs to mine, go micro 4 dropships in different places of the map. I think that this guy nailed it on the head. I believe that the pro SC2 games will be even more dynamic because it will be easier for the top players to execute multiple attacks and such with the new interface. | ||
|
Mobius
Canada1268 Posts
On July 17 2010 07:45 Vei wrote: ITT: People who think they're better than they are call a game nub friendly when they can't even make it into Diamond (top 20%). -_- All the pros agree SC2 is a great game, and until you're in their league, I really don't think you have any room to call it a newb-friendly game. you've spoken to all the pros and asked them what they thought of the game?? | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 17 2010 07:53 Back wrote: You think the better analogy is the one where the two players compete against the program for a higher score instead of against each other? And the basketball one is weird too. If Kobe Bryant had done all his training on a large rim size, it would be a totally different game in which he would destroy you or me just as badly as the smaller rim because that's the basketball he perfected. You act like it would be his first time playing with a giant rim. People playing SC2 won't be caught by surprise, they will have mastered the game the way it is. It doesnt matter really what analogy, you just need to look at who benefits when the game is made easier, which is clearly people of lesser skill. Kobe Bryant is going to dominate me on a larger rim yes, but not by as much because i am going to do better. Its much like SC2, which is a "larger rim" compared to SC. Someone of good amount of skill should absolutely demolish me in sc, and they do, however since SC2 is easier, the skill gap is much smaller, and the ability for me to upset is much larger than other games. May this change as the game evolves, only time will tell, however im sure that SC (and warcraft, and other RTS) professionals will be able to transfer over to SC2, however to ask someone who only had success at SC2 to revert back to sc1, it will be impossible for them to make a meaningful impact, simply because the game is that much harder. | ||
|
Back
Canada505 Posts
On July 17 2010 09:00 Holcan wrote: It doesnt matter really what analogy, you just need to look at who benefits when the game is made easier, which is clearly people of lesser skill. Kobe Bryant is going to dominate me on a larger rim yes, but not by as much because i am going to do better. Its much like SC2, which is a "larger rim" compared to SC. Someone of good amount of skill should absolutely demolish me in sc, and they do, however since SC2 is easier, the skill gap is much smaller, and the ability for me to upset is much larger than other games. May this change as the game evolves, only time will tell, however im sure that SC (and warcraft, and other RTS) professionals will be able to transfer over to SC2, however to ask someone who only had success at SC2 to revert back to sc1, it will be impossible for them to make a meaningful impact, simply because the game is that much harder. Last post for me on this as I'm sure neither of us will convince the other. I disagree. Just like Kobe can't just throw the ball from anywhere on the court and automatically score, just like there's a lot more to it than just throwing a ball, making certain aspects of the game "easier" doesn't mean pro players won't capitalize on it as much as anyone else. You're either not giving them enough credit about how much they can do with the spare actions freed by the AI, or you're giving them TOO much credit assuming they are doing every possible simultaneous action in Broodwar currently. | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
| ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
zak
Korea (South)1009 Posts
| ||
|
LF9
United States537 Posts
also . . . On July 17 2010 09:54 Wr3k wrote: Try playing Zerg against a high diamond level terran for 30 minutes straight and tell me SC2 is easier than BW. SO true. I might even go so far as to say I would put my money on a mid-level GOLD Terran against a lower level Diamond Zerg. | ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
On July 17 2010 10:19 LF9 wrote: Wouldn't that potentially be a balance issue and not the same as the true difficulty of Starcraft?I think basically what's happening is that SC2 is turning more into a game of build-orders (BO poker) like other competitive RTS games have been in the past and less of a test of multitasking, mechanics, and speed like BW was. As long as both players in any given 1v1 have enough APM to keep up with basic base management and macro, the player with the superior build order will win 95% of the time and most games are decided by this. Even after a few hundred games at the Diamond level, I have yet to play a game that was decided, in my opinion, by anything other than build order. This implies that most players able to reach this level, which isn't that hard with a bit of practice, have most of the basic mechanics down, and what separates the average Diamond players from the top Diamond players is simply superior build orders and superior understanding of the metagame, rather than sheer mechanical superiority like it was in BW. also . . . SO true. I might even go so far as to say I would put my money on a mid-level GOLD Terran against a lower level Diamond Zerg. In response to the OP, I'm not sure if "noob-friendly" would be the right word, but I am definitely sorely disappointed because I don't find any mechanics or maneuvers in this game impressive. The micro is dull, and the macro is jokingly easy compared to SC:BW. The skill gaps are still there, but they're a lot smaller. | ||
|
zak
Korea (South)1009 Posts
On July 17 2010 09:54 Wr3k wrote: Try playing Zerg against a high diamond level terran for 30 minutes straight and tell me SC2 is easier than BW. i have to bust my ass when playing against terran. fk up once and it is gg for zerg. anyone else feel this way? against zerg and toss i dont have to work as hard | ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
On July 17 2010 10:31 zak wrote: i have to bust my ass when playing against terran. fk up once and it is gg for zerg. anyone else feel this way? against zerg and toss i dont have to work as hard Yeah dude, unless you are idra/dimaga its rough lol. | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
| ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
On July 17 2010 10:45 Holcan wrote: what does zvt being broken have to do with the over all game, wc3 is clearly the hardest RTS since undead vs orc is broken~~ Just saying I don't find this game easy as a Z player lol... | ||
|
Skvid
Lithuania751 Posts
Depends on who you are really. If you played bw for 5 years on iccup and are confident at your knowledge and skill at that game then i understand that sc2 might look and feel easy for you. Personally i think that this game is easy to learn and hard to master, a compromise for the wide spectrum of gaming audience. To me personally this game can get difficult as i lack speed during "busy" moments. So i can see myself improving. | ||
|
Surrealz
United States449 Posts
(also there are 2 X-pacs coming out in the future...) | ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 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 Errr no, BW was easy to play but hard to master. Anyone who liked games could pick up and play starcraft "the campaign atleast". But it is IMPOSSIBLE to master. | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
I mean.. do u feel it's interesting to have things like " i need to make my worker mine by myself " in a rts game ? current macro stuff ( chronoboost / MULES / larvaes ) is way more dynamic and interesting. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
Somehow I feel it was intentional in BW, because MBS and Automine would really be not that hard to code at all. Even SCVs could waypoint "Automine" after building. | ||
|
biarecare
United States76 Posts
| ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
On July 17 2010 10:31 zak wrote: i have to bust my ass when playing. fk up once and it is gg. anyone else feel this way? this sounds like you are playing brood war On July 17 2010 10:51 Wr3k wrote: Just saying I don't find this game easy as a Z player lol... It's not easy but I'm sure you've seen how much shit zerg has to deal with from terran in brood war. For an example see sAviOr vs Iris @ arkanoid game 5 | ||
|
[GiTM]-Ace
United States4935 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
It is much more impressive to out-think your opponent then to out-click him. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On August 02 2010 07:13 MockHamill wrote: This game requires less APM then BW. That is a good thing. Decision making, both strategical and tactical, is what will separate the top players from each other. It is much more impressive to out-think your opponent then to out-click him. I honestly don't quite buy this. If you look at the top-tier pros playing the game, there's still plenty of holes where more "clicks" could be used. Even white-ra and tester neglect chronoboosting later in the game when there's so much stuff going on. Back when fazing was still in the game, people didn't really do it outside of the early game because they didn't have the APM to do so. Same can be said of potential mid-late game reaper and warp prism harass. I think that it's still completely possible for players to have 300+ APM in SC2 without 250 of those clicks being spam. The difference is that those clicks won't be used for stuff like making goons not act retarded and sending workers to mine, but rather for more strategic maneuvers. | ||
|
In_Ri
18 Posts
| ||
|
Calamity
Canada161 Posts
On August 02 2010 09:59 In_Ri wrote: 6-pool really takes MAD SKILLZ. If you think such a simple RTS is hard to be good at you're obviously lacking crucial stat points in the "INT" field. :D Obviously, you didn't read none of the thread and just quoted the first post you found just so you could bash it. 6 pool doesn't take mad skills, hence the easy to play part. 6 pool is killed by an early wall in if scouted, still takes little skill. Trying to macro, build more starports, drop mules, harassing the zerg's gold expo with vikings while siege tanks within range of his spine crawlers while getting turrets up at your base to stop the muta harass is a lot harder, hence the hard to master part. Taking a look at your other posts, I didn't know a person that posts on TL could live under a bridge too... | ||
|
Sinborn
United States275 Posts
An average person does not look at mineral gathering and proclaims, "Wow, that's cool." Chronoboost, on the other hand, is interesting because its a choice that affects gameplay. They're both based off of the economy. Players are permitted to focus on more exciting elements in general. Glass-half-full says the game has less busywork and more audience-oriented elements. | ||
|
In_Ri2
Bangladesh3 Posts
| ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
You had it coming. | ||
|
BooYah
Antigua/Barbuda1 Post
| ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
| ||
|
twiggy
Canada30 Posts
Single player, sure, it's noob friendly. But none of my friends can get out of the bronze division because it's hard for them. No matter how many times I tell them to build more scv's or give them the basics on how to macro, they never learn. I don't think it's any easier then SC1 in terms of PvP. | ||
|
andyrichdale
New Zealand90 Posts
On August 02 2010 10:31 danl9rm wrote: chess is too noob friendly too. i learned how to play in 10 mins. Haha - good call | ||
|
sjschmidt93
United States2518 Posts
No, if you magically froze IdrA and WhiteRa you would NOT see random diamond players rise up to their skill in 2-3 months. You have no idea how much better they are than you. Well, froze as in, they didn't get better or froze as in they couldn't play for 3 months and got their skill severely depleted? If the latter, I could see it. | ||
|
Raiznhell
Canada786 Posts
Nada - most awarded player Boxer - most respected player Flash - most skilled player all terrans from bw what i think makes terran more potent now is that now they dont have to wait for tier 2 to deliver a powerful punch cuz of the marauder. i actually hate the marauder for this. i always liked the skill it would take a terran to turtle get tanks up and slowly try to creep over to their opponent. this game terrans just mass rauders and 1a move and it makes me sad | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
| ||
|
SilentCrono
United States1420 Posts
| ||
|
Backpack
United States1776 Posts
On August 02 2010 11:34 SilentCrono wrote: stop making these threads. This is the same one from 2 weeks ago -_- | ||
|
Dinn
United States66 Posts
| ||
| ||
