On October 07 2010 00:11 MorroW wrote: this guy is a hero in my eyes, he said pretty much exactly what i feel but also what many ppl feel who come from sc1. only difference is that i believe that its gonna get better in time :p ppl who didnt understand bw will never understand what real rts is, and what a challenge it was
I don't know if it will get better in time. If it's anything like the way WoW (the only recent Blizzard game to reference) went, it won't. If it's like warcraft 3... well we might see just a redesign of the game for HoTS, but that may turn out to have balance issues as well.
It's good to be optimistic but I think there's a big problem with the way Blizzard is approaching balancing and design. I think fundamentally SC2 is going to stagnate and not improve until Blizzard rethinks their strategy in balancing. They're way too stubborn and way too subtle and that's not going to save the game.
I also havent seen a player do simultaneous drops (maybe Boxer).
Its notable though, that Boxer doing that required so much attention his macro went completely to shit. It remains to be seen whether, with more practice, he'll reach a point where he can execute that level of micro without letting his macro slip.
Ah damn. I liked NTT's play in early BW, too bad he doesnt like SC2. I can see some of his points, but feel he exaggerates too much. Although it is a rage-filled exit rant, so I wouldnt exactly expect his best analysis. To each his own-- it's one man's impressions, nothing more nothing less.
NTT was one of the best players in the world around 1998-2000. The foreign scene was thriving and top players were still beating Koreans left and right. NTT got third at the WCG 2000 (technically called WCGC and the WCG officially started in 2001) and was generally seen as one of the most feared players in the world. On top of that he didn't just beat people but he beat them in a style nobody had ever seen and nobody has seen again. Totally unique in the way he managed to win games and not in a cheesy way at all but a solid style heavily reliant on expanding.
He made an art out of trash talking. I don't generally enjoy anyone trashtalking but there is a lot of hilarious NTT footage out there. Idra's rage can't hold a candle to it.
So the next person wondering who he is please understand that this isn't some random and no matter if you disagree in the manner that this is done show some respect.
On October 07 2010 00:16 TheFinalWord wrote: I don't know what the purpose of making a game mechanically demanding is. Is it not possible that someone could explain to to me, or do I have to play Brood war for 4 years to understand. It would very much appreciated if I could skip that step.
It is a misconception that because you have more time to think about strategy, by not having to multitask as much, that the game becomes strategically more enjoyable at a top level.
If you create a game that is very easy you will allow too many players to play at the highest level, too many players to figure it out strategically. When this happens you will not find uniqueness (which a lot of people think you will find) instead you will find strategies being equal amongst the whole playing field. Figure it out once; anyone can do it. However if you had made it harder to perform, through mechanics, new strategies would actually stay a lot more unique because of how hard it is to execute them.
That is my theory at least but I'm pretty confident in it.
"Micro is easy, macro is easy and games are won or lost based purely on randomly chosen build orders. Time management is non existent because 60 apm means you can do everything with pro-gamer efficiency."
"Randomly chosen build orders"?--its called scouting and strategy, there's nothing "random" about it.
Micro and macro are easy? Then how come nobody executes them all perfectly? For all that Fruit played awesome, in many of his games he was seriously negelecting creep spread because he was focusing so much in microing his army to get good surrounds and baneling drops. IdrA executes near-perfect macro, but more often than not his army control comes down to a-moving waves of units right into the opposing force. Boxer was pulling off insane multi-drop micro...and his macro was absolute shit.
I have literally *never* seen anyone play a perfect game, in the sense of perfectly microing their entire army, while executing their macro to perfection, while scouting and making good decisions. Its never been done. For all that people complain about how "easy" this stuff is, even the very best players in the world neglect certain parts of the game to focus on others.
My thoughts exactly. It's such a stupid concept OH MAN I LOSE TO NEWBIES BECAUSE IT'S TOO EASY. Yes, the skill floor is a bit higher, but that means that someone who has played BW for years has that much higher of a skill ceiling as well.
People who whine or quit the game over things like mbs or claiming that the "skillcap" is too low are just showing the same psychological trait that you see whenever you or someone else bm's after a loss.
The reaction of blaming the game, blaming the cheese that just killed you for being broken or blaming the entire game for being broken is the kind of reaction you get when you go into the game feeling entitled to a certain level of success. Then when that does not happen you end up with a discrepancy in your actual success and the success you feel entitled to.
This is why people who were good in broodwar and feel entitled to be instantly as good in sc2 will blame the game for being broken for not letting them default into a leading position. This is why IdrA will rage at people who beat him with a tankdrop because he feels that he is too good to actually lose to that.
On October 07 2010 00:16 TheFinalWord wrote: I don't know what the purpose of making a game mechanically demanding is. Is it not possible that someone could explain to to me, or do I have to play Brood war for 4 years to understand. It would very much appreciated if I could skip that step.
It is a misconception that because you have more time to think about strategy, by not having to multitask as much, that the game becomes strategically more enjoyable at a top level.
If you create a game that is very easy you will allow too many players to play at the highest level, too many players to figure it out strategically. When this happens you will not find uniqueness (which a lot of people think you will find) instead you will find strategies being equal amongst the whole playing field. Figure it out once; anyone can do it. However if you had made it harder to perform, through mechanics, new strategies would actually stay a lot more unique because of how hard it is to execute them.
That is my theory at least but I'm pretty confident in it.
I agree i think it's surprising people think there's somehow going to be more strategy... more like it's just going to be figured out a lot faster. There's hardly an unlimited amount of viable strategies available with the tools given. If anything it's more likely to turn into WC3 style where games are decided by micro mostly.
Players not familar with BW should watch Shauni's stream thats running now and see the joy of seeing BW played at a decent level
On October 07 2010 00:28 VanGarde wrote: People who whine or quit the game over things like mbs or claiming that the "skillcap" is too low are just showing the same psychological trait that you see whenever you or someone else bm's after a loss.
The reaction of blaming the game, blaming the cheese that just killed you for being broken or blaming the entire game for being broken is the kind of reaction you get when you go into the game feeling entitled to a certain level of success. Then when that does not happen you end up with a discrepancy in your actual success and the success you feel entitled to.
This is why people who were good in broodwar and feel entitled to be instantly as good in sc2 will blame the game for being broken for not letting them default into a leading position. This is why IdrA will rage at people who beat him with a tankdrop because he feels that he is too good to actually lose to that.
And this is why it is nice that Morrow speaks out his mind on this as well as he is the most successful player outside of Korea. Your whole post is a justification of your own opinion but not necessarily true at all. It would be nice if you were a little more open minded in making your statements.
It is a misconception that because you have more time to think about strategy, by not having to multitask as much, that the game becomes strategically more enjoyable at a top level.
If you create a game that is very easy you will allow too many players to play at the highest level, too many players to figure it out strategically. When this happens you will not find uniqueness (which a lot of people think you will find) instead you will find strategies being equal amongst the whole playing field. Figure it out once; anyone can do it. However if you had made it harder to perform, through mechanics, new strategies would actually stay a lot more unique because of how hard it is to execute them.
That is my theory at least but I'm pretty confident in it.
And yet, at least so far, SC2 is incredibly strategically diverse. For all that people bitch about "omg Terran just mass bio", watching the GSL that hasn't been true at all--at the top level, everyone has their own playstyle. The way TLO plays Terran is not the way ITR plays Terran which is not the way Jinro plays Terran which is not the way Morrow plays Terran. Tester, HuK and Inca all approach Protoss in a different way. Fruit and IdrA don't play anything like each other.
If SC2 were really that easy to hit the skill cap on, and it was thats imply to hit on the 100% optimal strategy/playstyle, this would not be the case. All top terrans would play the same way, so would all top zergs and protosses.
But they don't.
Honestly, I think NTT is just bitching because while superior mechanics do definitely help, they don't create the MASSIVE gap they used to. If someone has superior mechanics, but their opponent outthinks them and has a better strategy, those mechanics often won't be enough to guarantee a victory.
It is a misconception that because you have more time to think about strategy, by not having to multitask as much, that the game becomes strategically more enjoyable at a top level.
If you create a game that is very easy you will allow too many players to play at the highest level, too many players to figure it out strategically. When this happens you will not find uniqueness (which a lot of people think you will find) instead you will find strategies being equal amongst the whole playing field. Figure it out once; anyone can do it. However if you had made it harder to perform, through mechanics, new strategies would actually stay a lot more unique because of how hard it is to execute them.
That is my theory at least but I'm pretty confident in it.
And yet, at least so far, SC2 is incredibly strategically diverse. For all that people bitch about "omg Terran just mass bio", watching the GSL that hasn't been true at all--at the top level, everyone has their own playstyle. The way TLO plays Terran is not the way ITR plays Terran which is not the way Jinro plays Terran which is not the way Morrow plays Terran. Tester, HuK and Inca all approach Protoss in a different way. Fruit and IdrA don't play anything like each other.
If SC2 were really that easy to hit the skill cap on, and it was thats imply to hit on the 100% optimal strategy/playstyle, this would not be the case. All top terrans would play the same way, so would all top zergs and protosses.
But they don't.
Honestly, I think NTT is just bitching because while superior mechanics do definitely help, they don't create the MASSIVE gap they used to. If someone has superior mechanics, but their opponent outthinks them and has a better strategy, those mechanics often won't be enough to guarantee a victory.
Absolutely but this is a game barely a few months old. It is bound to be very diverse by definition. There is just no way a game will not be diverse in the first few months. Nobody will disagree that this is the case no matter how hard it is to play mechanically. Pointing at this when there has only been one major tournament seems a bit redundant it's always going to be diverse in this period.
Besides that I think that NTT's rant does not apply to Zerg at all. Zerg is very hard mechanically. He should switch to Zerg actually that should make him happy.
"Micro is easy, macro is easy and games are won or lost based purely on randomly chosen build orders. Time management is non existent because 60 apm means you can do everything with pro-gamer efficiency."
"Randomly chosen build orders"?--its called scouting and strategy, there's nothing "random" about it.
Farewell guy who played BW competitively 10 years ago. Enjoy your old memories, your dusty trophies, your regrets, your worries and (now) your stubbornness to accept something new.
Farewell guy who criticizes mbs, auto-mining, warp-in, reactors, void rays, stim and blink; I hated DT rushes, 1-base carrier/arbiter play, vulture harass, mutalisk micro (even though even I, an old man and a noob, was able to do it), and (of course) the well acquainted hold-position lurker.
Guy who played SC 10 years ago, this game just does not satisfy your "elite" mechanics; what those are, I guess we will never know. While the maps in SC2 are horrendous (for whatever reason), and balance is non-existent (for whatever reason), the game play is straitjacketed (which I assume one needs a straitjacket to be around you and play the game), and of course the quintessential "even a monkey can do it" line that reverberates to the core of all ignoramuses around the world. And after all, I thought we were all monkeys
This indeed, guy who played SC 10 years ago, is certainly like going from F1 to go-kart; except now that you've showcased your rage, I think you'll be navigating on a much weaker vehicle; perhaps on a blow up doll, painted to look like one of your favorite SC:BW heroes?
On October 07 2010 00:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: He made an art out of trash talking. I don't generally enjoy anyone trashtalking but there is a lot of hilarious NTT footage out there. Idra's rage can't hold a candle to it.
So the next person wondering who he is please understand that this isn't some random and no matter if you disagree in the manner that this is done show some respect.
I certainly respect him for what he was in BW, but I don't have to respect the way he is talking. Why would I show respect to trashtalking (= showing no respect)? (Then again it's not the player i'm not respecting but the way he talks and argues).
On October 07 2010 00:28 VanGarde wrote: People who whine or quit the game over things like mbs or claiming that the "skillcap" is too low are just showing the same psychological trait that you see whenever you or someone else bm's after a loss.
The reaction of blaming the game, blaming the cheese that just killed you for being broken or blaming the entire game for being broken is the kind of reaction you get when you go into the game feeling entitled to a certain level of success. Then when that does not happen you end up with a discrepancy in your actual success and the success you feel entitled to.
This is why people who were good in broodwar and feel entitled to be instantly as good in sc2 will blame the game for being broken for not letting them default into a leading position. This is why IdrA will rage at people who beat him with a tankdrop because he feels that he is too good to actually lose to that.
And this is why it is nice that Morrow speaks out his mind on this as well as he is the most successful player outside of Korea. Your whole post is a justification of your own opinion but not necessarily true at all. It would be nice if you were a little more open minded in making your statements.
I still think that people who speak against stuff like MBS and automining are missing the point. It's 2010 and you can't expect people to buy in to a game with a 1990s interface.
As successful as BW was in esports, casuals still easily accounted for almost all of Blizzard's profits. SC2, for all the interface improvements they made, is still intimidating mechanically to the vast majority of potential customers. It's still one of the scariest and most intimidating games to pick-up and try. It's partly why RTS was arguably as popular as FPS was in the late 90s but is such a small niche market nowadays.
Pros are just going to find something else to do because Blizzard can't be expected to put out a purely esports game that just caters to a very tiny minority.
On October 07 2010 00:28 VanGarde wrote: People who whine or quit the game over things like mbs or claiming that the "skillcap" is too low are just showing the same psychological trait that you see whenever you or someone else bm's after a loss.
The reaction of blaming the game, blaming the cheese that just killed you for being broken or blaming the entire game for being broken is the kind of reaction you get when you go into the game feeling entitled to a certain level of success. Then when that does not happen you end up with a discrepancy in your actual success and the success you feel entitled to.
This is why people who were good in broodwar and feel entitled to be instantly as good in sc2 will blame the game for being broken for not letting them default into a leading position. This is why IdrA will rage at people who beat him with a tankdrop because he feels that he is too good to actually lose to that.
And this is why it is nice that Morrow speaks out his mind on this as well as he is the most successful player outside of Korea. Your whole post is a justification of your own opinion but not necessarily true at all. It would be nice if you were a little more open minded in making your statements.
I still think that people who speak against stuff like MBS and automining are missing the point. It's 2010 and you can't expect people to buy in to a game with a 1990s interface.
As successful as BW was in esports, casuals still easily accounted for almost all of Blizzard's profits. SC2, for all the interface improvements they made, is still intimidating mechanically to the vast majority of potential customers. It's still one of the scariest and most intimidating games to pick-up and try. It's partly why RTS was arguably as popular as FPS was in the late 90s but is such a small niche market nowadays.
Pros are just going to find something else to do because Blizzard can't be expected to put out a purely esports game that just caters to a very tiny minority.
I think you are missing the point, people don't think automining or MBS shouldn't be in SC2. They think something else should be replacing the difficult mechanics from BW. Something to raise the skill level, to make a big gap between top players. I don't know what it is but i'm not a game designer.
On October 07 2010 00:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: He made an art out of trash talking. I don't generally enjoy anyone trashtalking but there is a lot of hilarious NTT footage out there. Idra's rage can't hold a candle to it.
So the next person wondering who he is please understand that this isn't some random and no matter if you disagree in the manner that this is done show some respect.
I certainly respect him for what he was in BW, but I don't have to respect the way he is talking. Why would I show respect to trashtalking (= showing no respect)? (Then again it's not the player i'm not respecting but the way he talks and argues).
I hate 99% of the trash talking in any sport. However seeing Muhammad Ali going at it was a form of art. I don't expect you to agree or to respect it at all, but there is regular rage and there is skilled trashtalk and that they are not the same. Some people hate both, I personally only hate regular rage. Skilled trashtalk is so rare that you would almost forget it exists at all.
On October 07 2010 00:28 VanGarde wrote: People who whine or quit the game over things like mbs or claiming that the "skillcap" is too low are just showing the same psychological trait that you see whenever you or someone else bm's after a loss.
The reaction of blaming the game, blaming the cheese that just killed you for being broken or blaming the entire game for being broken is the kind of reaction you get when you go into the game feeling entitled to a certain level of success. Then when that does not happen you end up with a discrepancy in your actual success and the success you feel entitled to.
This is why people who were good in broodwar and feel entitled to be instantly as good in sc2 will blame the game for being broken for not letting them default into a leading position. This is why IdrA will rage at people who beat him with a tankdrop because he feels that he is too good to actually lose to that.
And this is why it is nice that Morrow speaks out his mind on this as well as he is the most successful player outside of Korea. Your whole post is a justification of your own opinion but not necessarily true at all. It would be nice if you were a little more open minded in making your statements.
I still think that people who speak against stuff like MBS and automining are missing the point. It's 2010 and you can't expect people to buy in to a game with a 1990s interface.
As successful as BW was in esports, casuals still easily accounted for almost all of Blizzard's profits. SC2, for all the interface improvements they made, is still intimidating mechanically to the vast majority of potential customers. It's still one of the scariest and most intimidating games to pick-up and try. It's partly why RTS was arguably as popular as FPS was in the late 90s but is such a small niche market nowadays.
Pros are just going to find something else to do because Blizzard can't be expected to put out a purely esports game that just caters to a very tiny minority.
I don't think anyone expects it to change though. Everybody is pretty realistic about the fact that this is 2010 and indeed MBS isn't going anywhere. Good example is NTT quitting actually because he does not expect it to change either. I don't see any claims that Blizzard should change the game I only see people say that they are unhappy it was implemented which is a fair thing to say. Blizzard won't do a single thing about it. They have e-sports in their pockets, SC2 is a guaranteed e-sports success, and they don't need to make the game more physically demanding to achieve this and they know it. Everybody has to accept this and those who can't will stop playing and that is fine as well.
The current SC2 is a very fun game, but not a high level esports game like BW is. But I'm still holding out hope that there will be large changes in gameplay. Hell, aren't there two more expansions that will come out? It's just a matter of how bold Blizzard is and how committed they are to creating a high level game rather than trying to market it to as many noobs as possible.
I love how everyone lauds BW as the pinnacle of RTS gaming and reminisces about it's "finer points" while forgetting that some of it was just clunky design. There's no doubt that BW was the most popular RTS ever but it wasn't because there was no MBS and automining was available, etc.
I played SC1 and BW since the day they came out. It wasn't that much harder. I hear all these "pros" cry about how easy SC2 is and there's no challenge etc. etc. but then I wonder - well why don't you just use the free time you get with MBS and automining to micro better? Why not develop better tactics or more interesting game play instead of whining about how great things were "back in your day."
We're seeing some really creative and exciting play from other pros. Balance is improving (let's not forget that SC:BW was getting patched years after it came out) and there are a lot of potential tweaks on the way.
And finally... how about these "pros" stop over-stating how "tough" BW was. My God. You set a key to a building in your base (or a location) and you spam click across your production buildings, then make sure your SCVs are mining. Big deal. We still go back to base for MULES, Larva, and CBs - and while it's not as often, the concept is the same and it takes mere seconds. Big freaking deal. If anything MBS opens up more room for micro and tactics - which is really what excites most people. I can't recall the last time I heard someone say "Man, I really can't wait to watch this match between X and Y. I sure do love how X makes units!" unless they're trying to practice macro - and even then it's a rarity.
I played BW again the other day just to compare... and while I miss Defilers and Lurkers...
EPT
