|
On March 25 2011 01:44 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2011 11:53 barkles wrote:On March 24 2011 11:40 randplaty wrote:On March 24 2011 11:28 barkles wrote:
many times has anyone seen a build like this in pro BW in the last 3 years?
Since I've never come up with some dominating build order that revolutionized starcraft, I'm going to trust Tyler when he says that well-rounded builds take a long time to develop (and you should too). But if there is one thing that BW has shown us, it's that "safe", macro oriented play is the strongest in the long haul. But that's exactly my point. This is NOT BW and therefore we cannot trust what "BW has shown us." It's not the same game at all. It's completely different, designed around a completely different engine. The smart pathing and better AI have COMPLETELY changed the game. All of the evidence we have (actual tournament results) suggests the same thing. The games look and feel completely different. The results are completely different. I'm open to the possibility that in the end the game will look similar to BW, but for right now, because there is 0 evidence of that... I'm leaning towards the evidence. And the evidence says that it's a completely different game. Hmm..well saying it's not the same game at all is a little silly, don't you think? Let's break this down: Both Starcraft 1 and 2 are RTS games. They have similar units with similar abilities. In the early days of starcraft 1, there was a high rate of 1-base and 2-base all-ins or (semi-all in) timing attacks. In the latter days of SC1, we see an extremely high rate of macro based play. In the early days of SC2, we're seeing a relatively high rate of 1- and 2-base all-ins and timing attacks. We don't know what's going to happen in the latter days of SC2 yet, but isn't it reasonable to assume that the game will evolve in a similar manner? Basically what I'm saying is that the only indicator that we have for the development of SC2 is the development of SC1. So far, they have followed the same trends, and based on the fact that they are both RTS with similar units and abilities (as I mentioned previously), I think this makes SC1 a pretty good indicator. But honestly, that doesn't even matter all that much because it's still the only indicator we have. The only rational expectation of future play that we can make based off of this one good indicator is that macro play will dominate in the future at some point. Trying to make an argument for anything else has zero evidence behind it. Furthermore (and to be slightly hypocritical), the only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 are people that have played both at a professional level. Tyler is such a person. Are you? The only indicator we have for the development of SC2 is SC1? Why would you say that? Yes they're both RTS games but there have been many popular RTS games including Warcraft and Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3. All three were completely different games from each other and were completely different games from SC1 and SC2. In Starcraft1's first couple years of development there was no pro gaming scene to speak of. The game took much longer to develop and refine because people took it much less seriously. I doubt SC2 will take the exact same development path that SC1 took. Only progamers are allowed to draw similarities or differences between the two games? This is a game design issue which involves game theory, programming, business and marketing. I actually think progammers are less qualified than some people to comment on game design. Besides that, this is the classic fallacy of argument from authority (ie, you're wrong because you're not an authority). Again, I'm not saying that SC2 won't develop into a macro game the way that SCBW did. All I'm saying is that we have no definitive evidence that it will. Therefore saying that MC's style is not a good long term style just has no evidence to back it up. For all we know, SC2 will be dominated by timing attacks in the long run and MC's style will be the style of the future.
I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're helping my point by noting how different the Warcraft series is from the Starcraft series...also, there are two things you need to take into account:
1) The RTS game with the most developed pro scene is SC:BW
2) The RTS game most similar to SC2 in terms of gameplay is SC:BW
These are the reasons why SC1 is the only good indicator of how we might predict SC2 gameplay to develop.
And I'm not saying that SC2 will take EXACTLY the same path. I only said that, given what we observed from SC1 and what we've seen so far in SC2, it looks likely that they will follow SIMILAR paths.
On the commenting on similarities: perhaps I should have specified what I meant more carefully. The only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 gameplay at a high level are people that have played both at a professional level. And saying that game designers are potentially more qualified to talk about such things is rubish anyway. They can't possibly be expected to know all of the strategical nuances of the game they have created. Only high level players are in a position to even begin to judge such things.
Think of it this way: would you expect the creators of the game of chess to be able to comment intelligently on the strategies that are employed at the highest levels of chess today?
|
On March 25 2011 01:04 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2011 16:58 Talin wrote:
I don't get why you insist on seeing this barrier between SC2 and BW that isn't there at all. What exactly do you base the opinion that they're two completely different games on, other than how SC2 plays like barely a year since release and while being balance patched every few months? There's nothing in SC2's core design that would make it significantly different from BW or that would make it revolve around timing attacks (in the sense of how it currently works).
As for the patching and stuff, I don't think Blizzard even needs to intervene in majority of cases, nor does everything players have problems with right now need to be "patched out" (I don't even like that approach). Players will come up with solutions like they always have, it just takes a little bit of time. Even if no patch ever comes out after 1.3, the game will look and play radically different in 3 or 4 years.
You can't say "well it works like that NOW" and use that as an argument that nothing will ever change. BW and WC3's history are proof enough that the games evolve on their own over a longer period of time, and that it takes a while for strategies to solidify. Both those games have already been through pretty much the exact same stages in their history and I can't see why SC2 would somehow be an exception. There are a lot of fundamental differences between BW and SC2. The macro mechanics are just one of the big differences. Damage bonus modifiers are a huge difference multiplying small advantages into large advantages. Unit pathing is another huge difference. Because the individual units in SC2 are smarter and are able to get into the battle to deal damage rather than wandering around in the back, the battles are much more decisive. Surely you've noticed that most of the games you play are decided by one battle in SC2. In BW there was much more back and forth even in the early days of that game. Because battles are much more decisive, small advantages, such as having 1 more stalker can swing an entire battle in a player's favor. Therefore if you can derive a build order around having a few small advantages, a timing attack appears and you can parlay those small advantages into huge advantages by attacking. In BW, the battles were less decisive, so small advantages would just be small advantages.
You don't trust people like Tyler's judgment but you trust your own ability to claim the things you do in your post?
Makes no sense dude.
You also claim that the only evidence that can be used is what has happened in tournaments. Well, to be honest, you haven't even supplied that evidence, or explained how it fits your theory. Many of the recent GSL, GSTL, several foreign invitational tournaments, etc. games have not been decided by a single decisive battle, so you claiming that the outcomes of those games fits your theory can't just be taken for granted.
Basically, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that people who have played thousands of games and studied the game more in depth than you have which backs Tyler's point of view that you couldn't really comprehend further than Tyler summarizing it as "safer more solid strategies tend to be better in the long run." As condescending as that is, at least it's not just a bunch of made up nonsense like the post I am quoting.
|
On March 25 2011 02:21 barkles wrote:
I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're helping my point by noting how different the Warcraft series is from the Starcraft series...also, there are two things you need to take into account:
1) The RTS game with the most developed pro scene is SC:BW
2) The RTS game most similar to SC2 in terms of gameplay is SC:BW
These are the reasons why SC1 is the only good indicator of how we might predict SC2 gameplay to develop.
And I'm not saying that SC2 will take EXACTLY the same path. I only said that, given what we observed from SC1 and what we've seen so far in SC2, it looks likely that they will follow SIMILAR paths.
On the commenting on similarities: perhaps I should have specified what I meant more carefully. The only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 gameplay at a high level are people that have played both at a professional level. And saying that game designers are potentially more qualified to talk about such things is rubish anyway. They can't possibly be expected to know all of the strategical nuances of the game they have created. Only high level players are in a position to even begin to judge such things.
Think of it this way: would you expect the creators of the game of chess to be able to comment intelligently on the strategies that are employed at the highest levels of chess today?
I'm saying that all of the games were different from each other. Warcraft was VERY different from Warcraft 2. I'm not saying that the starcraft series is different from the warcraft series. I'm saying that each and every game was different. Therefore Starcraft 2 will likely be very different from all of those games, including BW.
Starcraft 2 was not created solely for professional gamers. It was created for it's entertainment value. Tyler is qualified to comment on the future of the game just as anybody is qualified to comment on it. Merely because he is a pro gamer does not mean he is MORE qualified. Game designers at Blizzard may or may not care about the macro game and may take the game in a different direction with patches and expansions etc. Blizzard cares about the pro gaming level yes, but they probably care more about the entertainment value of the game and therefore the future of the game will have just as much to do with marketing as it will have to do with pro gaming strategies.
Care to comment on the SC2's macro mechanics, unit pathing, damage modifiers etc. that I mentioned in previous posts? All of these features were implemented by Blizzard in order to increase the marketability of the game. These features were not present in SC1 and radically changes the way the game plays out.
|
On March 25 2011 02:36 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2011 02:21 barkles wrote:
I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're helping my point by noting how different the Warcraft series is from the Starcraft series...also, there are two things you need to take into account:
1) The RTS game with the most developed pro scene is SC:BW
2) The RTS game most similar to SC2 in terms of gameplay is SC:BW
These are the reasons why SC1 is the only good indicator of how we might predict SC2 gameplay to develop.
And I'm not saying that SC2 will take EXACTLY the same path. I only said that, given what we observed from SC1 and what we've seen so far in SC2, it looks likely that they will follow SIMILAR paths.
On the commenting on similarities: perhaps I should have specified what I meant more carefully. The only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 gameplay at a high level are people that have played both at a professional level. And saying that game designers are potentially more qualified to talk about such things is rubish anyway. They can't possibly be expected to know all of the strategical nuances of the game they have created. Only high level players are in a position to even begin to judge such things.
Think of it this way: would you expect the creators of the game of chess to be able to comment intelligently on the strategies that are employed at the highest levels of chess today?
Tyler is qualified to comment on the future of the game just as anybody is qualified to comment on it. Merely because he is a pro gamer does not mean he is MORE qualified.
How the hell do you argue that being more knowledgeable about something doesn't make you more qualified to talk about it?
You can theorycraft all day about how macro mechanics cause this and Blizzard's intentions cause that, but it's all trumped by actual game knowledge and experience.
|
On March 25 2011 02:44 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2011 02:36 randplaty wrote:On March 25 2011 02:21 barkles wrote:
I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're helping my point by noting how different the Warcraft series is from the Starcraft series...also, there are two things you need to take into account:
1) The RTS game with the most developed pro scene is SC:BW
2) The RTS game most similar to SC2 in terms of gameplay is SC:BW
These are the reasons why SC1 is the only good indicator of how we might predict SC2 gameplay to develop.
And I'm not saying that SC2 will take EXACTLY the same path. I only said that, given what we observed from SC1 and what we've seen so far in SC2, it looks likely that they will follow SIMILAR paths.
On the commenting on similarities: perhaps I should have specified what I meant more carefully. The only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 gameplay at a high level are people that have played both at a professional level. And saying that game designers are potentially more qualified to talk about such things is rubish anyway. They can't possibly be expected to know all of the strategical nuances of the game they have created. Only high level players are in a position to even begin to judge such things.
Think of it this way: would you expect the creators of the game of chess to be able to comment intelligently on the strategies that are employed at the highest levels of chess today?
Tyler is qualified to comment on the future of the game just as anybody is qualified to comment on it. Merely because he is a pro gamer does not mean he is MORE qualified. How the hell do you argue that being more knowledgeable about something doesn't make you more qualified to talk about it? You can theorycraft all day about how macro mechanics cause this and Blizzard's intentions cause that, but it's all trumped by actual game knowledge and experience.
Okay, do all arguments need to devolve into "you're not a progamer so don't talk" ?.
MC is SC1 progamer and an SC2 progamer. Would he agree with Tyler that his own style is inferior?
|
i love SotG its a great show and you guys are hilarious, also it was awesome to heard that you guys got a huge amount of positive feedback in person, keep it up guys!
|
On March 25 2011 02:48 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2011 02:44 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 02:36 randplaty wrote:On March 25 2011 02:21 barkles wrote:
I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're helping my point by noting how different the Warcraft series is from the Starcraft series...also, there are two things you need to take into account:
1) The RTS game with the most developed pro scene is SC:BW
2) The RTS game most similar to SC2 in terms of gameplay is SC:BW
These are the reasons why SC1 is the only good indicator of how we might predict SC2 gameplay to develop.
And I'm not saying that SC2 will take EXACTLY the same path. I only said that, given what we observed from SC1 and what we've seen so far in SC2, it looks likely that they will follow SIMILAR paths.
On the commenting on similarities: perhaps I should have specified what I meant more carefully. The only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 gameplay at a high level are people that have played both at a professional level. And saying that game designers are potentially more qualified to talk about such things is rubish anyway. They can't possibly be expected to know all of the strategical nuances of the game they have created. Only high level players are in a position to even begin to judge such things.
Think of it this way: would you expect the creators of the game of chess to be able to comment intelligently on the strategies that are employed at the highest levels of chess today?
Tyler is qualified to comment on the future of the game just as anybody is qualified to comment on it. Merely because he is a pro gamer does not mean he is MORE qualified. How the hell do you argue that being more knowledgeable about something doesn't make you more qualified to talk about it? You can theorycraft all day about how macro mechanics cause this and Blizzard's intentions cause that, but it's all trumped by actual game knowledge and experience. Okay, do all arguments need to devolve into "you're not a progamer so don't talk" ?.
Yes, because all of your arguments are not backed by any sort of actual logic, so there's really no way for me to attack them.
|
On March 25 2011 02:48 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2011 02:44 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 02:36 randplaty wrote:On March 25 2011 02:21 barkles wrote:
I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're helping my point by noting how different the Warcraft series is from the Starcraft series...also, there are two things you need to take into account:
1) The RTS game with the most developed pro scene is SC:BW
2) The RTS game most similar to SC2 in terms of gameplay is SC:BW
These are the reasons why SC1 is the only good indicator of how we might predict SC2 gameplay to develop.
And I'm not saying that SC2 will take EXACTLY the same path. I only said that, given what we observed from SC1 and what we've seen so far in SC2, it looks likely that they will follow SIMILAR paths.
On the commenting on similarities: perhaps I should have specified what I meant more carefully. The only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 gameplay at a high level are people that have played both at a professional level. And saying that game designers are potentially more qualified to talk about such things is rubish anyway. They can't possibly be expected to know all of the strategical nuances of the game they have created. Only high level players are in a position to even begin to judge such things.
Think of it this way: would you expect the creators of the game of chess to be able to comment intelligently on the strategies that are employed at the highest levels of chess today?
Tyler is qualified to comment on the future of the game just as anybody is qualified to comment on it. Merely because he is a pro gamer does not mean he is MORE qualified. How the hell do you argue that being more knowledgeable about something doesn't make you more qualified to talk about it? You can theorycraft all day about how macro mechanics cause this and Blizzard's intentions cause that, but it's all trumped by actual game knowledge and experience. Okay, do all arguments need to devolve into "you're not a progamer so don't talk" ?. MC is SC1 progamer and an SC2 progamer. Would he agree with Tyler that his own style is inferior?
Well I do disagree with you thinking you are equally qualified. Even if you happen to state that a certain build is better than another, and you are correct while a pro disagrees... you still very likely have less understanding of it.
That being said, I agree that just because you are not a pro gamer doesn't mean you are automatically incorrect if a pro disagrees with you.
Edit:
On March 25 2011 02:51 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2011 02:48 randplaty wrote:On March 25 2011 02:44 PJA wrote:On March 25 2011 02:36 randplaty wrote:On March 25 2011 02:21 barkles wrote:
I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're helping my point by noting how different the Warcraft series is from the Starcraft series...also, there are two things you need to take into account:
1) The RTS game with the most developed pro scene is SC:BW
2) The RTS game most similar to SC2 in terms of gameplay is SC:BW
These are the reasons why SC1 is the only good indicator of how we might predict SC2 gameplay to develop.
And I'm not saying that SC2 will take EXACTLY the same path. I only said that, given what we observed from SC1 and what we've seen so far in SC2, it looks likely that they will follow SIMILAR paths.
On the commenting on similarities: perhaps I should have specified what I meant more carefully. The only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 gameplay at a high level are people that have played both at a professional level. And saying that game designers are potentially more qualified to talk about such things is rubish anyway. They can't possibly be expected to know all of the strategical nuances of the game they have created. Only high level players are in a position to even begin to judge such things.
Think of it this way: would you expect the creators of the game of chess to be able to comment intelligently on the strategies that are employed at the highest levels of chess today?
Tyler is qualified to comment on the future of the game just as anybody is qualified to comment on it. Merely because he is a pro gamer does not mean he is MORE qualified. How the hell do you argue that being more knowledgeable about something doesn't make you more qualified to talk about it? You can theorycraft all day about how macro mechanics cause this and Blizzard's intentions cause that, but it's all trumped by actual game knowledge and experience. Okay, do all arguments need to devolve into "you're not a progamer so don't talk" ?. Yes, because all of your arguments are not backed by any sort of actual logic, so there's really no way for me to attack them.
Are you a pro gamer? You are so ready to defend and disprove what he is saying, but if you are not a pro gamer, then you also don't understand what you are talking about by your own words. How could you then disprove him? I don't follow what you're getting at here. All you are saying is that you blindly believe everything Tyler is saying because he is a pro gamer... but maybe he isn't correct. Maybe another pro player would disagree with him and THEY would be right.
|
Incontrol you big nerd you <3
I just fuckin love SotG, can't believe I can sit there and suddenly 2,5 hours have passed by!
|
When is the Mp3 version coming out of the latest SOTG?
|
On March 25 2011 02:36 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2011 02:21 barkles wrote:
I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're helping my point by noting how different the Warcraft series is from the Starcraft series...also, there are two things you need to take into account:
1) The RTS game with the most developed pro scene is SC:BW
2) The RTS game most similar to SC2 in terms of gameplay is SC:BW
These are the reasons why SC1 is the only good indicator of how we might predict SC2 gameplay to develop.
And I'm not saying that SC2 will take EXACTLY the same path. I only said that, given what we observed from SC1 and what we've seen so far in SC2, it looks likely that they will follow SIMILAR paths.
On the commenting on similarities: perhaps I should have specified what I meant more carefully. The only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 gameplay at a high level are people that have played both at a professional level. And saying that game designers are potentially more qualified to talk about such things is rubish anyway. They can't possibly be expected to know all of the strategical nuances of the game they have created. Only high level players are in a position to even begin to judge such things.
Think of it this way: would you expect the creators of the game of chess to be able to comment intelligently on the strategies that are employed at the highest levels of chess today?
I'm saying that all of the games were different from each other. Warcraft was VERY different from Warcraft 2. I'm not saying that the starcraft series is different from the warcraft series. I'm saying that each and every game was different. Therefore Starcraft 2 will likely be very different from all of those games, including BW. Starcraft 2 was not created solely for professional gamers. It was created for it's entertainment value. Tyler is qualified to comment on the future of the game just as anybody is qualified to comment on it. Merely because he is a pro gamer does not mean he is MORE qualified. Game designers at Blizzard may or may not care about the macro game and may take the game in a different direction with patches and expansions etc. Blizzard cares about the pro gaming level yes, but they probably care more about the entertainment value of the game and therefore the future of the game will have just as much to do with marketing as it will have to do with pro gaming strategies. Care to comment on the SC2's macro mechanics, unit pathing, damage modifiers etc. that I mentioned in previous posts? All of these features were implemented by Blizzard in order to increase the marketability of the game. These features were not present in SC1 and radically changes the way the game plays out.
Sure, I'll comment on the macro mechanics etc. The truth is that no one (yourself included) has any idea whether these will lead to more "cheesy" styles of play in the long term or not. They could very well lead to very solid defensive play. Once it has been identified that we have no idea how these will affect future gameplay, the only sensible thing to do is remove it from any discussion of how we think the game will play out in the future. This is similar to the Independence Axiom, if you're familiar at all with mathematics or game theory. They don't give us any information or credible expectations to go off of. And the inclusion of these new devices does not "fundamentally change" they way SC2 is played from SC1. The only thing it does is make it easier. Well, the unit pathing does change some stuff, but again it is impossible for us to know right now what long-term effects that will have. (on a side note, did you every play SC:BW on a semi-serious level? From the comments you have been making I find it very, very unlikely. For example, damage modifiers also existed in SC1...).
And none of this changes the fact that SC1 and SC2 are very similar, and that we should value the advice of someone like Tyler who has played both professionally. If you want to stubbornly argue that pros aren't the best people to predict the direction of high level play, fine. I won't argue with you anymore. But you're in a very small minority.
|
On March 24 2011 15:55 HowSoOnIsNow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2011 15:49 IdrA wrote:On March 24 2011 13:24 HowSoOnIsNow wrote:On March 24 2011 11:25 KevinIX wrote:On March 24 2011 11:10 HowSoOnIsNow wrote:On March 24 2011 09:32 Slow Motion wrote:On March 24 2011 08:34 HowSoOnIsNow wrote:On March 24 2011 05:40 Slow Motion wrote:
Tyler is awesome. He put into words everything I've thought about MC. The SC2 guys who call him a god and worship him right now have no idea what a really great player is like. The thing that annoys me the most about MC's in-game BM is that he did a to July.
July was indeed a great player in BW. His wins were awe inspiring and beautiful in a way I've never seen from MC. MC has never accomplished what July has and I don't believe with his skills he ever will. It's like watching a cocky high school basketball player beat the current Magic Johnson 1 on 1 and then brag about it. Please, show some respect to someone who is truly greater than you are.
When Tyler says he wants to meet MC in a tournament and beat him, it made me feel like standing up and cheering. I love how much Tyler still respects the BW pros. He knows his roots and history, and would never disrespect someone like July. MC is currently Goliath with all his strength and power, but Tyler is definitely David because he stands for everything that is right and honorable in esports. Nony fighting in the TSL!!! While i do not think MC is a god, he was a BW player as well. I was rooting for July at the Finals and do agree that Ming chul never really played a game that impressed me, beside his micro abilities. But thinking that Tyler can beat MC is purely wishful thinking. I also fail at understanding why you're claiming Tyler to be this pure player, the essence of SC. The Golliath vs David analogy is quite strange to me. There's no Protoss in the world that can withstand the guy. SanZenith played brilliantly troughout the GSL and got crushed against MC. Beside if the latency is horrible, Tyler will get 2-0. The guy has the momentum. If Tyler would practice 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for a few months, he'd stand a chance. But he won't do that, probably never will. It's too bad for him. Yes MC was a BW player, and he was horrible too. The fact that he was in BW makes it worse that he was so cocky when playing July. July gave his dues to esports. He's legend status forever and MC is very very far from that. All I'm asking is for MC to show a little respect to a legend. And for sure Tyler would be the underdog vs MC, but I just loved how he came out and said he wants to play MC, while other players bitch and moan and are so scared of Korean pros. He's got balls of steel and I'll believe in him just like I believed in him to beat Idra in TSL2 even though he was the clear underdog. Got to agree with most of what you said right there. Though, MC is proving himself at SC2. It's true that you don't want players to be scared of the Koreans just because they are Koreans, but at the same time, there is respect to be given to guy that have 2 gsl title in the Silverware cabinet. Tyler has to beat Thorzain first,and it's not a given that he'll win. To me, it's a part of a fantasy where the foreigner vanquish the Koreans, as if it's us and them. Before talking of taking down the GSL champion, Tyler should focus on winning a title of his own. That would be a first step towards facing a giant like MC. Tyler was 6th at MLG DC and 4th at MLG Dallas. That's enough proof for any reasonable guy. I said titles. I'm not from the being second is okay school. I'm not from the everyone has a prize for playing school. Ace as a beefier curriculum than tyler. Tyler's a very good player, I,m not even trying to say he's not. But if you want to be in the same bracket as MC, you got to be better than being a very good player. You got to have something special, and that something special makes you win titles. That's not happening for him so far. You need the extra work to be a champion, you need to run the extra mile. Cristiano Ronaldo, Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp, Kobe Bryant, they all have the same thing in common: They put the work. Train the extra hour. The diet to make the difference. MC is doing just that. Hopefully, Tyler is heading towards that line. you're an imbecile Hahahah i got insulted by IdrA, this is priceless. I got tears in my eye hahaha damn.
That wasn't an insult. Just a statement of fact.
|
On March 25 2011 03:08 pyro19 wrote:
When is the Mp3 version coming out of the latest SOTG?
JP posted it already :D :
On March 23 2011 17:56 itmeJP wrote:JP, Socke, Geoff, and Tyler discuss all of the crazy stuff going on right now in the world of SC2 and talk about PvP. To view and/or download the video VOD, go check out http://itmejp.blip.tv/file/4921507/To download the MP3, simply click >>HERE<<Preshow uploading to blip as we speak. Will post when it sdone. If you are having issues listening to the mp3, you can stream it at the blip.tv link above, along with the .flv format (video). You can also pause/start the replay to get faster download times.
|
On March 25 2011 03:11 barkles wrote:
Sure, I'll comment on the macro mechanics etc. The truth is that no one (yourself included) has any idea whether these will lead to more "cheesy" styles of play in the long term or not. They could very well lead to very solid defensive play. Once it has been identified that we have no idea how these will affect future gameplay, the only sensible thing to do is remove it from any discussion of how we think the game will play out in the future. This is similar to the Independence Axiom, if you're familiar at all with mathematics or game theory. They don't give us any information or credible expectations to go off of. And the inclusion of these new devices does not "fundamentally change" they way SC2 is played from SC1. The only thing it does is make it easier. Well, the unit pathing does change some stuff, but again it is impossible for us to know right now what long-term effects that will have. (on a side note, did you every play SC:BW on a semi-serious level? From the comments you have been making I find it very, very unlikely. For example, damage modifiers also existed in SC1...).
And none of this changes the fact that SC1 and SC2 are very similar, and that we should value the advice of someone like Tyler who has played both professionally. If you want to stubbornly argue that pros aren't the best people to predict the direction of high level play, fine. I won't argue with you anymore. But you're in a very small minority.
I am trying my best not to stubbornly argue. That's why I concede that there is a distinct possibility that Tyler may very well be right. SC2 may become more macro oriented as the game progresses. I just haven't seen much convincing evidence that it will. I do value Tyler's opinion as one who has played both games professionally, but I still expect him to provide evidence beyond "that's the way it was in BW."
I acknowledge that macro mechanics, unit pathing, and damage modifiers does not necessarily mean that timing attacks will be more prevalent. I admit that I have no definitive knowledge of the future of the game. I would argue that those things point towards timing attacks, but you're right, I cannot be sure.
The question is, can you, or Tyler concede that he does not know with certainty that SC2 will proceed down the macro path? I'd say that the future of ANY game is difficult to predict whether or not you are a pro gamer. Could Johnny Unitas predict the advent of the West Coast offense? Could Sandy Koufax have anticipated the steroid era?
Yet Tyler uses his "knowledge" of the future to determine that MC's style will not work in the future. How can he predict the future of the game like that? Especially when MC has been the most consistent pro gamer in SC2.
Did I play SCBW on a "semi-serious" level? I played for 8 hours a day at one point. I was never a pro gamer. I played Warcraft 2 for 8 hours a day at one point. I played Warcraft the original quite a bit also. I always viewed Starcraft as the sequal to Warcraft 2. And Starcraft was completely different from Warcraft 2 just like Warcraft 2 was completely different from Warcraft 1. It would have been silly of me to predict the future of Starcraft based on ow Warcraft 2 played out. I know SC had damage modifiers, but not nearly to the extent that SC2 has them.
But again, I don't think our "qualifications" should have much to do with the argument. I'm arguing for fun obviously. I think it's an interesting discussion. I appreciate that you disagree with me and are willing to articulate your thoughts however different they are from mine. I appreciate Tyler's thoughts and appreciate him for bringing up the subject and stimulating me to think deeper into the game. I just want to continue that discussion and have more fun diving into topic. If I'm not qualified to discuss because I'm not a progamer or have not played the game "semi-seriously" then well ... I guess that sucks for me.
|
Just finished listening to Pax East and am halfway through EP 31, and I have to say the podcast keeps getting better. So funny when Tyler is being chill and ripping Mc =p. Keep it up, and I can't wait for Day9 to be back.
|
Just finished listening to ep31 and the thought of incontrol hunched over delicately painting his tyranid army is very entertaining.
Also fuck yeah Warhammer40k is awesome.
|
Just watched it : Tyler : as a zerg your hydras can't micro out of storm if you don't have creep. Just can't. And 1 storm kills the hydra. So well infestor change is good ofc but challenging it compared to storms is not really the good way to argument.
|
On March 24 2011 13:15 rolfe wrote:
why is owning a ferret nerdy?
Why is playing video games nerdy? It's just the stereotype.
|
On March 25 2011 02:44 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2011 02:36 randplaty wrote:On March 25 2011 02:21 barkles wrote:
I'm a bit confused. I feel like you're helping my point by noting how different the Warcraft series is from the Starcraft series...also, there are two things you need to take into account:
1) The RTS game with the most developed pro scene is SC:BW
2) The RTS game most similar to SC2 in terms of gameplay is SC:BW
These are the reasons why SC1 is the only good indicator of how we might predict SC2 gameplay to develop.
And I'm not saying that SC2 will take EXACTLY the same path. I only said that, given what we observed from SC1 and what we've seen so far in SC2, it looks likely that they will follow SIMILAR paths.
On the commenting on similarities: perhaps I should have specified what I meant more carefully. The only people that are qualified to draw similarities or dis-similarities between SC1 and SC2 gameplay at a high level are people that have played both at a professional level. And saying that game designers are potentially more qualified to talk about such things is rubish anyway. They can't possibly be expected to know all of the strategical nuances of the game they have created. Only high level players are in a position to even begin to judge such things.
Think of it this way: would you expect the creators of the game of chess to be able to comment intelligently on the strategies that are employed at the highest levels of chess today?
Tyler is qualified to comment on the future of the game just as anybody is qualified to comment on it. Merely because he is a pro gamer does not mean he is MORE qualified. How the hell do you argue that being more knowledgeable about something doesn't make you more qualified to talk about it? You can theorycraft all day about how macro mechanics cause this and Blizzard's intentions cause that, but it's all trumped by actual game knowledge and experience.
And game knowledge and experience are foiled by phenomenon like cognitive dissonance, group think and personal pride, as well as conflict of interest.
What you are forgetting here, that not only is in a global market (like eSports), MC a competitor, he is actually the worst kind of competitor for the 3 toss players that have commented on his style. And thats because hes the best toss at the moment. He is basically "stealing" all the attention, "fame and glory". Or let me put it this way: ever heard of a GM representative saying "wow, that new car from Toyota is awesome"?
|
Hahahah i got insulted by IdrA, this is priceless. I got tears in my eye hahaha damn.
Definitely the highlight of your career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
