NTT quits Starcraft 2 (?) - Page 25

I dunno why we are basically arguing semantics, but BW is harder to play for both players. It is more difficult for both of them than playing SC2 against each other would be.

On October 07 2010 04:46 infinity2k9 wrote:
This isn't true in SC2, everything is accessible to everyone which is why i think it will be figured out a lot faster and might stagnate.

On October 07 2010 04:47 kojinshugi wrote:


Would playing against Kasparov be harder if both you and him were both being kicked in the nuts every 3 seconds?

(another chess analogy yay!)

On October 07 2010 04:49 kojinshugi wrote:


Can we see VODs of you healing mutas with queens mid-battle?

On October 07 2010 04:54 infinity2k9 wrote:
I don't play SC2 now but why would this ever be useful? I don't see why it couldn't be done but when i'm talking about BW strategies that got opened up i mean things like defilers and arbiters which are vital units now. Not a silly single theoretical situation that would be hard to do.

On October 07 2010 04:54 gillon wrote:
So, after reading his second post (2nd edit in OP), he's not really quitting at all, is he?

On October 07 2010 04:54 infinity2k9 wrote:
I don't play SC2 now but why would this ever be useful? I don't see why it couldn't be done but when i'm talking about BW strategies that got opened up i mean things like defilers and arbiters which are vital units now. Not a silly single theoretical situation that would be hard to do.

On October 07 2010 04:54 infinity2k9 wrote:


It's just a retarded analogy. Like the dumb people who said hur why not have a 1 unit selection limit then. Even though i wouldn't even want a unit selection limit, i'm saying make up something else to make the skill cap higher. Why not try making a real argument.

I don't play SC2 now but why would this ever be useful? I don't see why it couldn't be done but when i'm talking about BW strategies that got opened up i mean things like defilers and arbiters which are vital units now. Not a silly single theoretical situation that would be hard to do.

On October 07 2010 05:00 kojinshugi wrote:
You keep missing the point of the argument, which is that skill caps don't necessarily have to be raised by making unit production/control harder but having better opponents with more varied strategies that are well practiced and executed?

Zerg having a high-HP, armored, non-autocasting medic that becomes viable due to rapid creep spreading and precise micro is a "single theoretical situation" that doesn't point to SC2 requiring mechanical skill?

On October 06 2010 15:50 SonuvBob wrote:
I bet it's really about the lower SCV health.

On October 07 2010 03:34 jinorazi wrote:
grouped buildings, 255 units in 1 group, smart casting, smart fire, auto mining, auto repair, queue system, health and progress bar, etc.

On October 07 2010 05:09 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:
I completely agree with NTT that there are just too many gimmicky units in the game, which turns the game into a massive cheese-fest at times. I think the game would be better off without void rays, cloaked banshees, reapers, salvaging bunkers (decreases the risk involved with cheesy offensive bunkers), mass auto-scv repair, and other gimmicks which even pro's like Idra lose to. Maybe I'm crazy and boring, but I'd prefer a game without proxies, offensive-cannons, offensive pylon wallins etc. I'd rather have a game where the winner wins from micro, macro, mechanics, and positional strategies like surrounds, flanks, backstabs, base trades etc, not from simple cheesy build orders that any noob can master, and beat even the best on occasion. Having said that, I still play the game because I think its very fun and exiting.