EPTI prefer it to be that way, but hey, what do I know? I can't understand why the game is trash, because I'm a noob, c'est la vie.
NTT quits Starcraft 2 (?) - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
lurked
Canada918 Posts
I prefer it to be that way, but hey, what do I know? I can't understand why the game is trash, because I'm a noob, c'est la vie. | ||
|
sushiman
Sweden2691 Posts
 He's right in many aspects though, but there's still huge differences in skill, and low apm still means you can't multitask as well as someone with high apm. But compared to BW I suppose the differences in skill aren't as apparent because of all the help you get from the AI and UI. | ||
|
attackfighter
Canada308 Posts
| ||
|
Kaasflipje
Netherlands198 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On October 07 2010 01:32 Zocat wrote: Edit: ok you answered most of the questions in your other post. I am such a slow typer  I have a question about the way he played - might be slightly offtopic. I looked it up and back then replays weren't available (and a lot of players mentioned it in this thread already^^). I just assume that streaming & VODs while playing didnt exist that much as it does today. Do you think that such a unique playstyle can be found today? Today with replays - when a player uses a unique and successful playstyle - everyone gets their replays and analyzes the crap out of them. The masses of SC2 players will try to adapt those strategies in normal bnet agmes- even the good (pro) players might try to copy that. And because the information is so wildely available they succeed in copying. Then the opponents start to lose to this strategy - and analyze the replays to find weaknesses. And they can tell their practice partners to play "the build" (as it is freely available). Are those "unique" styles viable in SC2? For longer than the tournament in which they are introduced? Anything is possible but it is definitely a lot harder. When NTT was in his prime replays were literally just introduced (BW went a long time without replays) with no vods or anything existing. People simply had no footage of top players and thus you could only copy those you played with directly and you weren't even able to look up why you lost to a certain style. Though style and uniqueness is generally a good thing, a game doesn't need to have this much diversity to do well in esports (but it would be a nice bonus). Replays definitely hurt creativity and uniqueness but that doesn't mean that the benefits they introduced didn't outweigh the cons. I don't know if SC2 will also have players who have their own style in the long run. Though the settings make it harder it shouldn't doesn't mean it is impossible. There are definitely styles out there currently but we are still very early in the life of this game so time will have to tell if these players can keep this up. Either way watching top players perform top strategies is always awesome anyways. BW doesn't have nearly as much variety as it had in 1999 but that doesn't say much as watching BW players in 2010 is still really great and I hope and think the same will go for SC2. | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
| ||
|
Raiznhell
Canada786 Posts
On October 07 2010 01:34 Rinsho wrote: I think a lot of people comparing the current state of SC2 to BW are forgetting how long BW took to get here. For the longest time there was no muta micro, hold position lurkers, lurker dodging, and everything else that makes BW so unique at the top levels. Heck, until Boxer very few Terran even used drops, something that's become a staple in TvX. At the start of SC/BW, the build orders were extremely simple to follow also. Very few "advanced" timings were included because that level of meta-game simply was non-existent at that point. In the same fashion, SC2 build orders are still relatively simple because the meta-game is still infantile. A big issue I find with all of it is that instead of pushing the meta-game/mechanics further and discovering new and interesting things, people have resolved themselves to simply stagnate while looking to Blizzard to somehow give them the answer. BW would not have become even a tenth of the game it is today if not for revolutionary players like Savior, Boxer, Flash, Jaedong, and Bisu (just to name a few). These are the kinds of people SC2 needs right now. We need the people at the highest level to expand the meta-game, take the game further than anyone thought possible. not to mention 9pool used to kinda just win XD but yeah i think sc2 already has players like that in Idra the macro expert TLO the inovation guy and then all those other players out there like Morrow that come up with really quirky strategies and abusing certain units ie: reapers abilities. aslo all the korean in the gsl are people like that with how almost every game in the gsl was won by a one-punch timing attack XD. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
|
Quepp42
United States96 Posts
Coding in assembly language can lead to really efficient programs, but it takes about a million times longer, and is also about a million times more difficult to do things than it would in C++ or Java. Using high level languages, it allows programmers to tackle much more COMPLICATED and DIFFICULT tasks that would be simply unbearable with assembly language. In BW you saw the limit of what can be done in the game. It was incredible. The APM of the top players allowed them to do crazy shit. However, you can still do those things in SC2, only with much more ease. So what does this mean? It basically means that the limit of what can be done in SC2 is much much higher. When people say that the game is too easy, I say, then you have the ability to do even more. Right now, players like Morrow say Terran is too easy. The only reason he says that is because he can win with minimal effort with them. However, if people started beating him, that would force him to do MORE, making the game more complex. Right now SC2 is still in its infancy and will continue to grow for a long long time. When you factor in the fact that more units are going to be added in expansions, and players are only going to get better, its a bright road ahead indeed. In BW it took a lot of APM to do a dual pronged attack while maintaining macro. You can do the same thing with much less APM now. Instead of looking at this as inferior, simply look at it as the opportunity to add a third or fourth prong to that attack, or maybe mix in more complex micro. You can just do more. Anyway, I'm sorry for the rant, I just can't understand why anyone would think that this game is worse because it allows you to do more. | ||
|
VanGarde
Sweden755 Posts
On October 07 2010 00:32 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: 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. Just what about it is closeminded? Seriously everyone who has ever bm'd someone after loosing a game and has some level of intellectual honesty knows this. The reason you rage when you loose a game to cheese is because at some level you felt like you were too good to lose to it. I do it myself as well not that I am proud of it, but I occasionally bm people when I lose and in retrospect I know it is because I felt that I had that win in some way and the same can be applied in a larger scope to people who ragequit the entire game. I don't think that it is at all close minded to point out that perhaps only people who actually have hit this theoretical "skill cap" are qualified to actually whine about it being too low. This goes even for MorroW and lets just be clear here, I am a huge fan of MorroW, he is perhaps my favorite non korean starcraft 2 player but just like everyone else he is nowhere near playing this game at its full potential. This entire discussion is just as pointless as it were in early beta when sc2 were going to crash and burn because it was too easy, it was too boring to spectate etc. But the same thing applies now as it did then, all this talk about mbs and whatnot making the game so dumbed down that you won't get individual styles is still just speculation. As much speculation as when I say that perhaps people like to blame the game to make up for not being at the level they want to be. edit: The differences between broodwar and starcraft 2 are not the core reasons for why you have individual styles in broodwar. The main difference between the two games lie in the fact that broodwar is not harder per se to play, it is just very clumsy to play. I don't think that it is the fact that unit selection is capped or that you have to go back to your base and click on every single building to make units is what lets you develop individual styles. The diversity of the game lies in the unit synergies and the mathematics that determine how each unit plays off another unit, building timings etc etc. It is still possible that sc2 has less options in the long run who knows, but that has nothing to do with the mechanics not being clumsy it will be determined by the versatility of the units in the game. | ||
|
GIGAR
Denmark88 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.itte.org.uk/system/files/2518update.jpg) (pic for visibility) Updated the original thread with post (OP) from NTT. Yes, it is -very- relevant. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32100 Posts
On October 07 2010 01:43 attackfighter wrote: SC2 just has very little focus on micro (or macro, but I was never a huge fan of macro...) and too much emphasis is placed on build orders. How is the emphasis on BOs any different than BW? Some shit works better than others. Same in both games. If you are building in complete disregard to what your opponent is doing, you get fucked--same in both games. Do you not get punished in BW if you pump nothing but lings and your T opponent sees it and uses bats?? And little focus on micro or macro, why do people keep bringing this up?? There's a ton of focus on macro. Try not injecting lavre all game, or not using chrono boosts. Or stick to gates instead of warps. Or micro for that matter, get a mirror match and A-move an identical amount of units against an opponent who does basic micro. 12 muta vs 12 muta, micro wins that battle every time. This argument constantly gets brought up by so many people and it's just flat out stupid. | ||
|
attackfighter
Canada308 Posts
On October 07 2010 01:48 Raiznhell wrote: not to mention 9pool used to kinda just win XD but yeah i think sc2 already has players like that in Idra the macro expert TLO the inovation guy and then all those other players out there like Morrow that come up with really quirky strategies and abusing certain units ie: reapers abilities. aslo all the korean in the gsl are people like that with how almost every game in the gsl was won by a one-punch timing attack XD. idra only like macro games, he isn't particularily good at them (prove me wrong idra, prove me wrong) and morrow didn't come up with 5 rax reapers Dimaga had had it used against him and showed morrow. | ||
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
On October 07 2010 01:46 xtfftc wrote: NTT's points are valid. However, I'm still positive about the future of the game. A couple of his points are valid. The rest make him seem like a bitter troll who can't win any tournaments because the game mechanics make it too easy for everyone else. There's a reason why everyone was saying "Who' NTT?" | ||
|
attackfighter
Canada308 Posts
On October 07 2010 01:51 Hawk wrote: How is the emphasis on BOs any different than BW? Some shit works better than others. Same in both games. If you are building in complete disregard to what your opponent is doing, you get fucked--same in both games. Do you not get punished in BW if you pump nothing but lings and your T opponent sees it and uses bats?? And little focus on micro or macro, why do people keep bringing this up?? There's a ton of focus on macro. Try not injecting lavre all game, or not using chrono boosts. Or stick to gates instead of warps. Or micro for that matter, get a mirror match and A-move an identical amount of units against an opponent who does basic micro. 12 muta vs 12 muta, micro wins that battle every time. This argument constantly gets brought up by so many people and it's just flat out stupid. No your argument is stupid. For the most part, macro and micro are so easy at a pro level that everyone should be performing equally in those areas - this makes build orders more important since there isn't much else a top player can do to deviate from his opponent. | ||
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
On October 07 2010 01:57 attackfighter wrote: No your argument is stupid. For the most part, macro and micro are so easy at a pro level that everyone should be performing equally in those areas - this makes build orders more important since there isn't much else a top player can do to deviate from his opponent. What does easy micro even mean? It's totally a PvP situation. If you were microing against AI, sure. Someone will always be better 1v1. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32100 Posts
On October 07 2010 01:45 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't know if SC2 will also have players who have their own style in the long run. Though the settings make it harder it shouldn't doesn't mean it is impossible. There are definitely styles out there currently but we are still very early in the life of this game so time will have to tell if these players can keep this up. Either way watching top players perform top strategies is always awesome anyways. BW doesn't have nearly as much variety as it had in 1999 but that doesn't say much as watching BW players in 2010 is still really great and I hope and think the same will go for SC2. There's always gonna be strong macroers and strong micro people, and the guys who fall in between. Even if an optimal playstyle emerges for certain MUs and everyone uses one build (doubtful, but let's run with that thought), the strengths and weaknesses of each player will cause them to strive for a certain type of game. The microer might want to press the issue a bit earlier, while the macroer will just hand in long enough to overwhelm later. I actually really do miss the days of no replays. It really was fun. I distinctly remember getting my ass handed to me by some dude who did toss FE like when the game first came out and I was fucking baffled that someone would have the balls to do that, and that it worked. And I remember spending fucking days trying to do it on my own til I got it from scratch. Time would never allow me to do something like that now, but I loved that. | ||
|
LostDevil
Fiji283 Posts
Everyone saying that SC2 still needs time to evolve strategically and will take long like Broodwar is misinformed. Broodwar took so long to evolve because it was mechanically more complex which made you have to focus on more things and getting better at more things at once. This is what made it the best strategy game EVER. SC2 will never trump it because of its mechanical simplicity. There really is not THAT much more to discover in SC2. Sure, strategies will evolve with map changes but that is to be expected in any RTS. To be clear, I like SC2 and it is a fun game. I did grow up playing broodwar and played it since I was 11 or 12, I am now 23 so there is a lot of nostalgia there. I will say that for the first time in a couple of years I went and installed ICCup because SC2 didn't have the same challenging appeal that Broodwar has. This is something that many of these new SC2 players will never understand sine they just brushed over Broodwar and watched some proleague games without delving deep into the game itself. To this day I still remember when sVEN, NTT and Slayer were the top gamers. I, in fact, still remember obs'ing a game with them and a good protoss named Manahattan. They were constantly discussing little things like probe splitting to the nearest and most efficient mineral patches and cost efficiency between unit swaps in battle ad nauseum. Many of those little and quite beautiful technical qwerks in broodwar are now long gone for 4 gate warps with ample time for a nap in between necessary actions. The simple fact is that NTT is at a level of understanding of RTS gameplay that 99% of posters in this thread will never come close to. The SC2 forum really saddens me at times because of all the new faces that come in with swords drawn ready to defend at all costs the calculated shortcomings of the game compared to Broodwar in order for Blizzard to be able to mass market it better and make more money. One last thing I will say about SC2 vs Broodwar is that I know of a female on the ladder who has 50 max apm in a game (this is not exaggerated) and does the same "timing push" every game regardless of the opponents race and is 1700. This is what is not acceptable to, what you forumers call, "old time broodwar elitists". Will I continue to play SC2? Yes. I wish there was a greater since of community since I prefer to play with friends however it will never replace the great times of Broodwar in my mind and for all of the other Broodwar players with great memories out there simply because it wasn't designed to be able to do so. It is designed for the average gamer because Blizzard felt, and still feels in many cases, that multiplayer matches are too intimidating for the new user. NTT's quotes made most of you in the SC2 forum angry. However, I think they really resonate with broodwar players that know who he is and were around from that time and that's the only audience he cares about. | ||
|
Rinsho
United States17 Posts
In BW it took a lot of APM to do a dual pronged attack while maintaining macro. You can do the same thing with much less APM now. Instead of looking at this as inferior, simply look at it as the opportunity to add a third or fourth prong to that attack, or maybe mix in more complex micro. You can just do more. I'm still waiting for a Protoss to do a dual-pronged Blink-stalker attack and blink-micro both sides. I tried but I just don't have the APM or mouse control to do it. Everyone saying that SC2 still needs time to evolve strategically and will take long like Broodwar is misinformed. Broodwar took so long to evolve because it was mechanically more complex [...] You only say it's mechanically more complex because hindsight is 20/20. BW was not mechanically complex at all when it started. Sure, you spam on buildings more to produce units, but that isn't really "mechanically complex" - it's just spamming. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32100 Posts
On October 07 2010 01:57 attackfighter wrote: No your argument is stupid. For the most part, macro and micro are so easy at a pro level that everyone should be performing equally in those areas - this makes build orders more important since there isn't much else a top player can do to deviate from his opponent. So you're saying that a guy with a true, non-spam 150 APM would be completely even with a dude doing the exact same build in a mirror MU, but dragging ass at 30APM? | ||
| ||
