|
On August 05 2010 09:51 UniversalSnip wrote:
I've never been to korea, but I'd think women would be more interested in progamers having money and being famous than being good at sc.
Yeah I was gonna reply to that and you're right on. They're mostly wet for fame not really sc skills.
Someone being good at SC has about the same level of interesting as someone who can juggle a ball. It's not negative, it doesn't drop the pants instantly. It's just... interesting. If juggling a ball like a clown is all you can do while unemployeed and ugly, dont expect to get laid.
|
On August 05 2010 10:46 Ndugu wrote:
I can actually play Starcraft II and have fun. I cannot say the same about Brood War, and neither can the entire world outside of Korea.
This argument is silly and pointless though. Korea doesn't really matter, if they want to stay with BW that's fine. There's no pro BW scene outside of Korea and there is a burgeoning SCII scene.
So its a better game in your opinion. Grats. But an Inferior Esport.
neither can the entire world outside of Korea.
So I'm assuming I bought all other seven million copies of Starcraft 1? I didn't know someone was tapping into my account funds hidden in a bank in sweden. dammit.
There's no pro BW scene outside of Korea and there is a burgeoning SCII scene.
The BW scene outside of Korea at its height is far bigger then the current SC2 scene. In fact, the scene, as of two years ago, was bigger, due to TSL2. Which had a bigger prize pool then all the SC2 tournies combined.
For somebody totally uninterested in an argument you're trying awfully hard to bait him.
orly? I'm trying hard? lolk.
|
United States10774 Posts
On August 05 2010 09:56 figq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 09:29 ghrur wrote:On August 05 2010 09:23 figq wrote:On August 05 2010 08:12 OneOther wrote:On August 04 2010 17:11 MockHamill wrote:On August 04 2010 16:47 BearsAreScary wrote:
Do people seriously think SC2 sucks because it has things that "require less skill" like MBS and unit AI that isn't unbelievably retarded.
I apologize for wanting a game where when I tell a group of stalkers to walk down a cliff, THEY DO IT and don't run across the whole map like idiots. Man, the elitist air from these BW people is really outrageous.
All this "mechanical skill" and "work" that you put into BW was literally just learning how to effectively spam APM: telling your units to do what you originally wanted them to do over and over, bugging them out with glitches to fly across mineral patches, make workers attack faster, etc.). How high you can get your APM up is not, in itself, a good or even decent measure of skill. Maybe if SC2 only took 50 APM to be pro at, I'd bite. But 150 APM compared to 300 and people are seriously freaking out?
SC2 requires a different set of skills, as has been said. During battles, your positioning and micro are much more important. Instead of your ability to micro being determined entirely by your APM in BW, now you have to actually do brainwork to determine what units you want to engage and how. Clicking faster no longer means a more advantageous situation. Now you must click more intelligently. You must ration your spells carefully, or wait to flank the opponent at the right time. It is precisely because you cannot salvage your lack of brainwork with a higher APM that makes SC2 as fantastic as it is.
But whatever, the BW elitists will never change their minds. They can have fun with their game, I suppose. This. BW is the most overrated game ever. It was a fun game with a bad interface that got abused by a bunch of Koreans that trained themselves in the art of clicking fast. Maybe this time around matches will be decided by strategy and skill and not by which monkey can click the fastest. What a god damn ignorant retard. And then this response was probably not the best way to demonstrate superior enlightenment. On August 05 2010 08:24 Meta wrote:
Those posts were clearly masterminded by horrible, lazy noobs who are still butt-hurt about how bad they sucked at BW coming in and saying "screw you" to Korea because they haven't started playing SC2 yet.
[...]
There's a reason why BW players sound a bit "elitest." It seems to correlate with elite cursing skills. I have a question - Blizzard themselves treat Starcraft 2 as the logical improvement of their Starcraft game - which went through SC1, BW, and now SC2. Isn't the reaction similar to the type of reaction to any new major patch? Wasn't the game of Starcraft being patched almost non-stop during all these years? People have gotten used to just adapting to the new patches, after some period of complaining. How is it different/worse now; it's even better, because in our case the previous version of the game (BW) is still active, and will probably be active indefinitely. So why all the hostility? Actually, OneOther's post was perfect.  It takes into account the cases of the poster being a troll and if the poster is actually serious.  Also, I don't think there were any balance changes in SCBW since patch 1.08 which was in 2001. =/ It was being patched non-stop, but that's different from actually changing the gameplay of it. And all the hostility is because change is coming to TL. We now have a larger population (YAY!) with more people to contribute valuable information (YAY!!), but we also have more people who're idiots (No  ) who don't know about the history between TL and BW (No ) and thus often disrespect the game which started it all. (No ). This change has also caused a schism (No ) which is now leading to hostility. Thanks, those are good points. About the unfortunate anti-BW post, I call it unfortunate, because I think it had grain of truth in it, despite being very offensive. And this is why it got such hostile responses; it's the grain of truth that teases.
Please tell me which part of this post had a grain of truth in it. There is none and every bit of it was ridiculous.
This. BW is the most overrated game ever. It was a fun game with a bad interface that got abused by a bunch of Koreans that trained themselves in the art of clicking fast. Maybe this time around matches will be decided by strategy and skill and not by which monkey can click the fastest.
BW is "the most overrated game ever?" It's a game of clicking fast, not strategy and skill? Don't get me wrong, I really like SC2 and am having a lot of fun with it. But to say that kind of idiotic things about Brood War is plain absurd. Everyone who has played a game on iCCup (doesn't even have to be above D rank) can appreciate the beauty of SC:BW. And they can all tell you that it is not an abused game of monkeys clicking fast.
|
10387 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:48 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:45 Kezzer wrote:
Why do people say that the APM requirements of BW eliminate strategy? Strategy isn't some overarching thing over a game that makes you stop and think. Sorry to break it to you people who think you're some kind of military genius, but despite being called an RTS there isn't that much strategy. Because it does. It is patently true that there exists a strategy/build order/composition/timing that is impossible to execute with less than 800apm. This strategy is, thus, completely out of the question for players who can only achieve 400apm. It is of course possible that you could have a game that was both mechanically easier than SCBW and had less strategy, but if you took SCBW and just added, say, MBS and unlimited control groups, strategy would become mildly more important than it is in SCBW now. All games exist on a continuum of strategy versus mechanics.
wow are you stupid? Are you actually saying that a game more mechanically demanding must have less strategy? Plus those strategies you speak of requiring 800 APM are those crazy harass-centric strategies that require insane multi-task.. I doubt you could do that even with all the auto-mechanics in the world, so your point is just retarded. BW might have a stronger, more pervasive standard strategy set than SC2, but it doesn't mean that strategy isn't less important in BW than it is in SC2.
|
Because it does.
It is patently true that there exists a strategy/build order/composition/timing that is impossible to execute with less than 800apm. This strategy is, thus, completely out of the question for players who can only achieve 400apm.
It is of course possible that you could have a game that was both mechanically easier than SCBW and had less strategy, but if you took SCBW and just added, say, MBS and unlimited control groups, strategy would become mildly more important than it is in SCBW now.
All games exist on a continuum of strategy versus mechanics.
You have no idea what you're talking about ^_^. Fact. Seriously why are you presuming to talk about this with any degree of experience, when in fact, you have zero experience?
|
On August 05 2010 10:53 ArvickHero wrote:
wow are you stupid?
Nope.
Are you actually saying that a game more mechanically demanding must have less strategy?
Yes. And I'm right.
Plus those strategies you speak of requiring 800 APM are those crazy harass-centric strategies that require insane multi-task. I doubt you could do that even with all the auto-mechanics in the world, so your point is just retarded.
This doesn't even make sense.
BW might have a stronger, more pervasive standard strategy set than SC2, but it doesn't mean that strategy isn't less important in BW than it is in SC2.
Indeed it doesn't. But it does mean that the strategy/mechanics "split" in SC2 is more biased towards strategy than the split in SCBW.
You have no idea what you're talking about ^_^. Fact. Seriously why are you presuming to talk about this with any degree of experience, when in fact, you have zero experience?
You gonna make an argument or are you just going to fling insults?
|
I don't know, I really don't think this article really matters when it comes down to the overall scene. Yes, Korea is a big part in Starcraft but maybe now its another country to have SC2 as its esport, sure Koreans will play and perhaps over time even Korea will adopt it and make it big, but I really don't think this matters too much, I have faith that SC2 will grow everywhere (as has been shown in beta) perhaps not in Korea but eventually they will adopt it if it so large everywhere else.
SC2 is a great game, I really don't care what anyone says, if they say it's bad, they most likely haven't played it competitively, or are stuck on B dub, which hey, I can't blame the BW pros, theyre making money doing what they are good at, it's a big risk they don't have to take, unless BW fades out.
|
You gonna make an argument or are you just going to fling insults?
Look you're talking about things you have 0 knowledge about. It isn't an insult, its an Ad-Hominem, except this time it isn't an Logical Fallacy, its Ad-Hominem used in proper context. The core pretext of your argument is patently wrong.
|
On August 05 2010 10:57 Half wrote:
Look you're talking about things you have 0 knowledge about. It isn't an insult,
It is, it just happens to be one that doesn't matter to many people.
its an Ad-Hominem,[ except this time it isn't an Logical Fallacy, its Ad-Hominem used in proper context.
There is no such thing as an ad-hominem that isn't a fallacy.
The core pretext of your argument is patently wrong.
Then you should demonstrate how, instead of resorting to fallacies.
|
Plenty of time for us to be able to contend with the SK players.
|
This thread is awfully serious.
Anyways, in case any of you are interested, superdanielman has tweeted a few times about the matter.
http://twitter.com/superdanielman
superdanielman:
this is so strange, why isn't anybody playing sc2????????????????? wtf my place is packed everyday and so few of them play star2,
superdanielman:
people react to monetary rewards best, that is human nature, you gotta have tourneys, shit load of them, on a daily basis
superdanielman:
to be more precise a game that looks boring, it's fun if u get hooked that was my point, sc2 looks boring, but it's a great game once u know
|
There is no such thing as an ad-hominem that isn't a fallacy.
"The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
But even if the core pretext of your argument wasn't wrong, you'd still be wrong.
Are you actually saying that a game more mechanically demanding must have less strategy?
No. The mechanical demand has nothing to do with the actual potential for strategy, it just limits the strategies that can be viably executed. Seriously. Think about it. If I could control only 1 unit at a time, the game is not less strategically complex, but strategic complexity is capped by mechanical skill (In this case too much, requiring inhuman apm to execute basic sequences).
On a D- level, the range of strategies a player can execute is less in Starcraft. Which is why the game is more compelling an esport, because theirs always something new to learn. Once your finally able to execute basic muta micro at D, you now have to learn to properly utilize strategically.
Look if you want to argue SC1 is an awful game, go fucking ahead. Thats something subjective. You can argue its too hard, not accessible enough, poor graphics, etc. These are things you may place value in a game, that I may not place as much value.
But you can't argue SC1 is a worse Esport, especially not with a virtually non-existent pool of knowledge to pull substantiated examples from.
|
On August 05 2010 11:04 Half wrote:"The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem
Wiki is wrong. Sorry about that.
No. The mechanical demand has nothing to do with the actual potential for strategy, it just limits the strategies that can be viably executed.
Which is precisely what I said.
On a D- level, the range of strategies a player can execute is less in Starcraft. Which is why the game is more compelling an esport, because theirs always something new to learn. Once your finally able to execute basic muta micro at D, you now have to learn to properly utilize strategically.
Your second claim doesn't follow from the first.
|
teamliquid REALLY needs a purge.
" monkeys clicking fast " have you ever watched or played a game of starcraft? I really dont believe you have.
also to claim to be right on an argument about mechanics and strategy. you must have mechanics and strategy. whats your sc1 and 2 rank?
|
10387 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:55 kzn wrote:Nope. Show nested quote +Are you actually saying that a game more mechanically demanding must have less strategy? Yes. And I'm right. Show nested quote +Plus those strategies you speak of requiring 800 APM are those crazy harass-centric strategies that require insane multi-task. I doubt you could do that even with all the auto-mechanics in the world, so your point is just retarded. This doesn't even make sense. Show nested quote +BW might have a stronger, more pervasive standard strategy set than SC2, but it doesn't mean that strategy isn't less important in BW than it is in SC2. Indeed it doesn't. But it does mean that the strategy/mechanics "split" in SC2 is more biased towards strategy than the split in SCBW. Show nested quote +You have no idea what you're talking about ^_^. Fact. Seriously why are you presuming to talk about this with any degree of experience, when in fact, you have zero experience? You gonna make an argument or are you just going to fling insults?
so... in what way does BW require less strategy than SC2? You may say making your own build order, but that point is completely nulled in a couple of years when standard builds are set. In BW new strategies are still being created anyways, although much more subtle than you'd probably be able to notice.
Btw you were the one who brought up the 800 APM argument, talking about how there are strategies that need 800 APM. This is what you said yourself
It is patently true that there exists a strategy/build order/composition/timing that is impossible to execute with less than 800apm. This strategy is, thus, completely out of the question for players who can only achieve 400apm.
Which, 90% of this is actual bullshit. No strategy used in BW requires any more than 250 APM. The only time a strategy would actually require 800 APM would be a harass-centric strategy, something like a Muta-allin harassing at 3 places at once... It's pretty obvious you don't even know what you are talking about.
|
also one of the most successful progamers ever had a low apm for his time, does the name savior ring a bell?
edit: also making your sentences short and snappy doesnt make you sound clever. it makes you sound like you have ds.
|
United States10774 Posts
kzn: I understand where you are coming from, but I have to disagree with you here. It seems like you are not making a correct distinction between strategy and execution. Higher APM/multitask requirements in BW does not eliminate strategy in any shape or form. A strategy, in the sense of RTS games, simply means a laid-out plan that combines build orders and tactics. An example of this is the Corsair/Reaver after FE in PvZ. Why is this a strategy? Because it follows a specific set of pathways. You expand to your natural, build a Stargate, Robotics, then attack/harass your opponent with those units. However, as we all know, being execute a high-APM strategy like that is a different story. But this doesn't eliminate or diminish the element of strategy in the game. The strategy is always there - an option for every player to use. And so those players would choose other strategies they find suitable.
|
On August 05 2010 10:48 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 08:45 Kezzer wrote:
Why do people say that the APM requirements of BW eliminate strategy? Strategy isn't some overarching thing over a game that makes you stop and think. Sorry to break it to you people who think you're some kind of military genius, but despite being called an RTS there isn't that much strategy. Because it does. It is patently true that there exists a strategy/build order/composition/timing that is impossible to execute with less than 800apm. This strategy is, thus, completely out of the question for players who can only achieve 400apm. It is of course possible that you could have a game that was both mechanically easier than SCBW and had less strategy, but if you took SCBW and just added, say, MBS and unlimited control groups, strategy would become mildly more important than it is in SCBW now. All games exist on a continuum of strategy versus mechanics.
I'll assume those apm numbers are arbitrary.
You must have not read my post, I clearly said that in SC2 there is very little strategy. The strategy essentially is played out by the mechanics. Tell me any strategy/build order/composition/timing where you need a high amount of apm to execute. There is none. The reason people that have high APM are better, is because they can multi-task better. Doing 2 things at once =/= strategy. You need maybe 30 APM to execute ANY build order, and most timings are based on what you have and are unrelated to APM.
I'll say it again, if you're expecting SC2 to have a significant amount of strategy, you're in the wrong place.
|
On August 05 2010 11:06 ShaperofDreams wrote:
also to claim to be right on an argument about mechanics and strategy. you must have mechanics and strategy.
Seriously?
I'm not sure anyone has made a statement that was more wrong on this site in its entire history.
|
This thread, including the OP, is a load of poppycock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
