Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
Drama queen out.
The game is just not demanding enough mechanically. It's just gimmicks upon gimmicks upon gimmicks. Maps are horrendous, balance is non existent, gameplay is straightjacketed, and monkeys can be trained to execute some of these build orders. 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. From Brood War to this is like going from F1 to a go-kart.
I gave the game an honest chance, but it's trash, sorry to say. Gave a bunch of free wins in my last 10 or so games. Might do some more insta f10-n'ing should I feel generous. If anyone poor needs an account, you can have this one as soon as Blizzard allows the free name change.
Noobs won't understand my issues with the game because they're noobs, c'est la vie.
This makes you wonder what will be the future of Starcraft 2 competitive gaming, especially if you consider the big BW players that have just moved (or is planning to move) to SC2.
What do you think? Is this a preview of what is to come, or is NTT just rage-quitting? :/ (obviously, it should be noted that this might just be a troll from NTT, but it's kind of a harsh troll if so)
Since I don't have an account there, I will make some comments here.
Darwin said “It's not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.”
Unfortunately it appears I am most unresponsive to change, as I can't seem to adapt to these new conditions. Mainly, I tend to lose more (a lot more) than one game in a million which seems unacceptable to me.
This has caused a degree of frustration, which expressed hyperbolically has created quite a stir in StarCraft II land. Perhaps I should express my opinions less condescendingly and without flavor to avoid all misunderstanding in the future. Be aware though, that I am not as emotionally invested as some of my rage-filled drama posts might suggest.
My sincere opinion about StarCraft II is that it's a decent game, well worth playing, but does not compare favorably to its predecessor. In time, it might. However unlikely this may seem at present.
Henceforth my trolling will be more controlled and less impactful, although always with a kernel of truth. More subtle if you will, like this post.
Okay thats who is NTT number 2. I think this thread serves no purpose in teamliquid. This guy hatesthe game then whatever. theres more than enough people who love it.
From Brood War to this is like going from F1 to a go-kart. ^^ Some parts are true, some are not. I guess its mostly ragequitting as hes been cheesed the last 15 games. But hey, I dont understand his issues with the game because im a noob, cest la vie.
On October 06 2010 15:50 SonuvBob wrote: I bet it's really about the lower SCV health.
LOL
seriously, all he does is just mass bunkers + planetary fortress and turtles to death, don't really care what he does now, there are more exciting players to follow.
Is that even the real NTT. Would NTT post on blizz forums? Also if the game was so fucking easy for NTT why did we not see him do shit? Did he win any tournments or anything because I've honestly seen him in zero events so far. NTT was always a class A+ trash talker. So he maybe just raging.
This is just a troll-bait thread that is going to end up with a lot of bans and encourage more hatred between the SCII/BW community. No one is even remotely near the SCII skill-cap yet.
Let's just kick it off: I hate Brood War more than you hate SCII. The graphics sucked, bro.
On October 06 2010 15:56 Ndugu wrote: What a joke. This is just a trollbait thread that is going to end up with a lot of bans and encourage more hatred between the SCII/BW community.
Let's just kick it off: I hate Brood War more than you hate SCII. The graphics sucked, bro.
On October 06 2010 15:56 Ndugu wrote: What a joke. This is just a trollbait thread that is going to end up with a lot of bans and encourage more hatred between the SCII/BW community.
Let's just kick it off: I hate Brood War more than you hate SCII. The graphics sucked, bro.
Wait so he plays terran and hes complaining about BO losses? I could somewhat kinda maybe understand his argument from a zerg's perspective from what i hear of tvz, but afaik terran has many safe openings that play out just fine against like everything the opponent can throw at you ^_~...
NTT was a very old school BW player who was from Scandanavia Holland. He was a good player but seemed to gain most of his fame from building scv relentlessly throughout the game. He would sometimes end up with half his supply as workers.
Hmm so no more mass expansions and air units for us ? And I believe he was matched against white-ra in the EPS qualifiers. Did not knew him as a flamer but he certainly did some entertaining matches in the dutch eps qualifiers.
Well let's progamers talk! I personally haven't here anything about NTT in any tournament so far, so it's hard to say. He is ragequitting pretty bad.. Hope that Blizzard will listen Progamers in Foregeirs (like MorroW, IdrA, TLO etc.) and Korean pros (NaDa, BoxeR, July, Cool etc.)
Just as NTT himself says in the OP, he's being a drama queen. He has some points about the game's flaws but he's massively exaggerating them to make a bigger splash. Oh well. Wish he would have stayed around, but people shouldn't force themselves to play games they don't enjoy.
On October 06 2010 15:59 Manifesto7 wrote: NTT was a very old school BW player who was from Scandanavia Holland. He was a good player but seemed to gain most of his fame from building scv relentlessly throughout the game. He would sometimes end up with half his supply as workers.
"good player" is quite an euphemism though. The guy was like top-3 non korean at the time and there were quite a lot of reps oh him beating actual pros. He might have been famous for his behavior first but he was insanely talented.
Along with Morrow this is now the 2nd top ex-good-BW player expressing these kinds of thoughts for SC2 (or at least SC2 Terran), so I believe the OP raises a decent question.
Well let's progamers talk! I personally haven't here anything about NTT in any tournament so far, so it's hard to say. He is ragequitting pretty bad.. Hope that Blizzard will listen Progamers in Foregeirs (like MorroW, IdrA, TLO etc.) and Korean pros (NaDa, BoxeR, July, Cool etc.)
Whoops, my bad. I didn't know he was dutch! I always grouped him in with the northerners like Slayer ><
On October 06 2010 15:59 Manifesto7 wrote: NTT was a very old school BW player who was from Scandanavia Holland. He was a good player but seemed to gain most of his fame from building scv relentlessly throughout the game. He would sometimes end up with half his supply as workers.
"good player" is quite an euphemism though. The guy was like top-3 non korean at the time and there were quite a lot of reps oh him beating actual pros. He might have been famous for his behavior first but he was insanely talented.
Fair enough, but he was a good player at a pretty disorganized time. While he was talented, once things got sorted out you didn't really hear from him much.
On October 06 2010 16:15 necroticah wrote: He was a dick. Look at his posts.
I'm pretty sure the community is glad to be rid of him. I sure as hell am.
Some very old-school BW players like NTT made a lot of fans-for-life with unusual playstyles. He will most likely always be welcome in the Starcraft community. He'd certainly have to burn his bridges a lot more aggressively than this.
I don't understand people rage quitting saying the game is too easy but not actually accomplishing anything. I remember NTT from bw days and I was even excited that he was playing SC2. That said I can't remember him doing anything worth mentioning in SC2, but I could be wrong.
Is the game easier than bw? Well hell yes, but not easy enough that just anyone could go to a tournament and win it.
Honestly i understand his frustration even if his posts are ridiculous. Sc2 isn't a bad game per se but there are some majors flaws. Shitty map pool, units clumping or ridiculous hard counters for example.
And yea macro is a complete joke in this game. It is only semi relevant if you play zerg.
On October 06 2010 16:18 Piski wrote: I don't understand people rage quitting saying the game is too easy but not actually accomplishing anything. I remember NTT from bw days and I was even excited that he was playing SC2. That said I can't remember him doing anything worth mentioning in SC2, but I could be wrong.
Is the game easier than bw? Well hell yes, but not easy enough that just anyone could go to a tournament and win it.
I have full faith in blizzard that by the end of the 2nd expansion most of these problems will be addressed in some form. However not everyone will be pleased lol.
On March 22 2003 21:44 NTT wrote: Maybe if any of you knew how to handle a terran economy, you wouldn't all be such whiny bitches. Don't blame the game because you can't cut it.
If he cant deal with it like other players do he should quit anyway.Its a new game he needs to adapt to the game not the other way around.Now whining cuz ppl with lower apm get certain BO's right is bad ? Does right BO mean instant win?
The thing is, Blizzard probably knows this but also knows that it'll be more profitable this way. More noobs that actually can do decent in the dumbed-down version means more fans and viewers for the tournaments where they can charge fees and advertising.
It would be nice if they let BW go on for the real professionals and let all us noobs enjoy SC2.
On October 06 2010 16:26 epik640x wrote: Well, everything he said is spot on.
The thing is, Blizzard probably knows this but also knows that it'll be more profitable this way. More noobs that actually can do decent in the dumbed-down version means more fans and viewers for the tournaments where they can charge fees and advertising.
It would be nice if they let BW go on for the real professionals and let all us noobs enjoy SC2.
You realize you just insulted a huge portion of TL community and all pro players who are playing SC2?
Game is easier than broodwar but it isn't some dumbed down console version of it.
I have no idea what the longevity of competitive SC2 will be, but I think the easier mechanics make the game more appealing to "mass" competitive play.
IMO, SC2 won't require Korean style 12+ hour daily practice sessions in order for people to stay competitive. Of course, practicing 12+ hours a day will give you an advantage, but it won't be such a large advantage like it was in BW.
rofl, i dont get it, iv yet to see constant harass while macroing and multitasking sevral things at once in this game. Sure the maps sucks, but the community will eventually just make their own maps and start going custom instead of Ladder unless Blizzard makes new maps. and for balance. rofl plz, the game is 10 times more balanced then any other RTS iv played sofar this early in the release. and iv played Warcraft/scbw/sc/red alert/cc from the start. stop bitching and l2p, theres liturally no skill cap in this game as far as i can see. and hes talking about scBw in 2000? give me a break. im liturally crying in real life from laughing-.-
lol NTT is awesome and I agree with what he says. Some units are just retarded in this game and it doesn't really leave as much room for distinct styles the way BW did in my opinion. Just as an example NTT was one of the first real macro orientated players from a WHILE back. He was basically foreigner Oov. Notice how some people have mentioned his massing SCV's. The guy was a legend, and his sentiments are shared by anyone who loved the diversity in strengths that could be used to take down your opponent.
His complaints are valid, just grossly over-exaggerated. Even with all its flaws, SC2 is still a highly demanding skill-based game. No 60 APM noob is going to perform even a quarter of the stuff that I saw in the GSL games.
The maps will eventually change. Balance will improve. We might even see major game mechanic changes in the future. To be honest, I don't really believe that NTT is gonna quit SC2 for good. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he came back after the expansions. No matter how much the detractors may scream, SC2's fate simply isn't going to be decided a mere two months in its lifespan.
NTT is just as whiney and BM as he was in BW lol. Don't know why this deserves a topic of it's own. I'm sure lot's of ex-BW players have said similar things. I said them myself for a while. But now I really enjoy the game and am looking forward to better things to come w/ the expansions. I think once there are a few more units for each race, the game will be deep enough that the lack of mechanics will be a good thing, because there will be so much deeper stuff going on
That is a bit extreme by NTT. I don't like SC2 myself because the maps are ridiculously stupid and does not allow some units to be used to their full potentials.
Regarding the watered down mechanic, the debate is "is it necessary for an RTS to demand good mechanics?"
I really want to see how Broodwar veterans who switch over do in GSL2.
I understand where he's coming from, but the game is young, things will get sorted out. Acting like a 6 year old wanting his toy back ain't something I expected from a pro like NTT.
Why making so much noise about quitting the game? If you want to quit fine, just don't do it that way.
Regarding his complaints, they are exagerated and they are problems that demands time to be solved. SC1 didnt became this godly game we know in 3 months, but this has been repeated many time.
how long did it take for starcraft to balance out?? the expansion, the patches..
and for the longest time protoss couldnt beat zerg at all all toss players complained about imba..
then even without any changes in patches or anything some guy named BISU started owning zergs and then the tables turned around and zergs started complaining.
like cmonnnn; you just gotta play it out. seriously.
I agree with a lot of what he said.. There are so many things that annoy me lol.. The biggest thing is though like what he said that a simple build order can be so powerful.. I never played brood war so cant compare but.. it would be nice if simple builds couldnt be so powerful so more games would go into the later stages of the game where APM is actually needed.. And for the people who are going to say pros can survive that stuff.. then I guess yall havent seen tester die to just a normal cloaked banshee build..
although I never really liked his playstyle, he is right about the execution of build orders - it's WAY easier to copy pro-gamer-builds after you've tried them a couple of times; yesterday I lost (again) to some marine/banshee/PDD-timing attacks against players with seemingly 60ish APM who would just place PDD, press stim and relax; notice this is not a general balance QQ, but affirming that NTT is right when he says that sc2 isn't really demanding when it comes to macro and build orders - every low diamond noob can do (kinda) effective builds that lead to (kinda) effective pushes that are possibly game-ending
in sc2 there are way fewer possibilities to exploit your opponent's weaknesses in the early and midgame - litereally nothing that you can do macro-wise and multi-tasking-wise besides spamming waypoints; this is where I get NTT's frustration: sitting there in the game, knowing that you perhaps will die soon, but still also knowing there's nothing you "can" do in the meantime, because macro and harassment-possibilities on multiple locations are so, so limited
"He has very strong macro and a creative style based on his refusal to use Marauders."
Sounds stupid to me. Regardless if everyone here thinks his opinion deserves respect, I don't think he deserves any. A truly seasoned veteran who is humble wouldn't quit for stupid reasons like this. If he doesn't like the game he doesn't have to attempt to make everyone who plays it feel like they are "teh n00bs srsly". Seems like a pompous ass, and his refusal to use Marauders, I laugh at him for that. Some progamer. It's like a chess player refusing to the use the knight.
Counter points are that...
Just because a game is made easier through more user friendly mechanics does not mean it's shallow, has less emphasis on skill, etc... Whereas it was difficult to macro whilst on 3 base, and do 3 pronged attacks in bw, now there might eventually be a focus of being on even more bases, attacking at more areas, and controlling the units more than just looking at them occasionally. Due to the increase in the games engine to allow you to do more things at once, it actually makes your brain the cap for skill and not your muscle memory. How much can you handle thinking about at once, and can you react quicker than others. I think SC2 will take this to a whole other level.
Plenty of game series have been through this, and the only one that I have seen where the community went back to the original, or recognized the new game in the series as a failure competitively was CS 1.6, and honestly Source wasn't THAT bad, just the maps aren't all that great, but the players were too stupid to really try and push custom maps for it that could be better.
On October 06 2010 16:38 Luvz wrote: rofl, i dont get it, iv yet to see constant harass while macroing and multitasking sevral things at once in this game. Sure the maps sucks, but the community will eventually just make their own maps and start going custom instead of Ladder unless Blizzard makes new maps. and for balance. rofl plz, the game is 10 times more balanced then any other RTS iv played sofar this early in the release. and iv played Warcraft/scbw/sc/red alert/cc from the start. stop bitching and l2p, theres liturally no skill cap in this game as far as i can see. and hes talking about scBw in 2000? give me a break. im liturally crying in real life from laughing-.-
not a big loss for the community in my eyes.
Agreed here, people have nowhere near taken this game to the limits of human potential yet. The maps suck but that's wasn't an issue for BW, did anyone play the blizzard maps anymore after a couple years, cmon now... And I have also played almost every major RTS (attempted at competition for most) and Red Alert 2 and Starcraft 2 are the most balanced I have played. Red Alert 2 because you really just had to build tanks, but my buddy had come up with a strategy that was like turtling and controlling the map through air, ala starcraft bw zergs, and being able to actually expand and control even more, but that game's strategy development was cut short by an expansion that was horribly inbalanced and ruined the community.
Heh, to each his own but there are a couple things I don't quite understand. This guy (in all likelihood) played sc1 1.0 and was competitive player back then. The "balance" of sc1 1.0, was infinitesimally worse than sc2 in it's current state. He should understand that a game is not typically perfect out of the box.
Also, sc2 is a dumbed down version of sc1 mechanically. This is basically fact, but it does not matter. What does matter is whether or not there is a skill level cap. In sc1, there basically isn't. There is always stuff you could be doing better and more of. In sc2, pros do not have perfect macro and what not, yet at least. There are some validish worries that in a couple years that may be the case and if that were to occur, I would deem sc2 as an esport a failure and I would probably at that point go back to playing bw on iccup. Until then though (assuming it does happen) there are always ways to improve.
this thread makes me sad. AN old BW pro like NTT quits and most of the thread is about newbies saying who cares, nobody knows him anyways. I wasnt a fan of him or anything, but still, he quits, and half of the comments have LOL in it
On October 06 2010 17:01 ejac wrote: Heh, to each his own but there are a couple things I don't quite understand. This guy (in all likelihood) played sc1 1.0 and was competitive player back then. The "balance" of sc1 1.0, was infinitesimally worse than sc2 in it's current state. He should understand that a game is not typically perfect out of the box.
Also, sc2 is a dumbed down version of sc1 mechanically. This is basically fact, but it does not matter. What does matter is whether or not there is a skill level cap. In sc1, there basically isn't. There is always stuff you could be doing better and more of. In sc2, pros do not have perfect macro and what not, yet at least. There are some validish worries that in a couple years that may be the case and if that were to occur, I would deem sc2 as an esport a failure and I would probably at that point go back to playing bw on iccup. Until then though (assuming it does happen) there are always ways to improve.
are you trolling, or you really mean what you wrote?
I also think NTT was playing starcraft 2 with like 4 command centers and no MBS and still constantly building SCVs, he also said he doesn't use marauders, rarely reapers and apparantly doesn't use much of auto mine and MBS.
I played him a couple times and saw a replay vs socke or something. He's still a SCV beast but PF suit his style ridiculously well.
This thread is disgusting. Not because it is posted, I want to read this news, but the reactions are sad. Be happy there is someone with an opinion and be happy you can discuss it.
On October 06 2010 16:57 standalone wrote: It saddens me that most people opt to criticize his credentials (or lack of in SC2).
His credentials are probably superior to everyone who has questioned his SC2 performance in this thread.
Perhaps you should question his arguments instead. Argue your point of view if you disagree.
Basically this. The game is most certainly enjoyable, but a large part of what he says is correct. And knowing his playstyle, I can understand that this game isn't the most fun for him. There's not that much room for crazy innovatism. It's closer to WC3 than we are willing to admit.
On October 06 2010 17:02 Geo.Rion wrote: this thread makes me sad. AN old BW pro like NTT quits and most of the thread is about newbies saying who cares, nobody knows him anyways. I wasnt a fan of him or anything, but still, he quits, and half of the comments have LOL in it
On October 06 2010 17:01 ejac wrote: Heh, to each his own but there are a couple things I don't quite understand. This guy (in all likelihood) played sc1 1.0 and was competitive player back then. The "balance" of sc1 1.0, was infinitesimally worse than sc2 in it's current state. He should understand that a game is not typically perfect out of the box.
Also, sc2 is a dumbed down version of sc1 mechanically. This is basically fact, but it does not matter. What does matter is whether or not there is a skill level cap. In sc1, there basically isn't. There is always stuff you could be doing better and more of. In sc2, pros do not have perfect macro and what not, yet at least. There are some validish worries that in a couple years that may be the case and if that were to occur, I would deem sc2 as an esport a failure and I would probably at that point go back to playing bw on iccup. Until then though (assuming it does happen) there are always ways to improve.
are you trolling, or you really mean what you wrote?
Because if he had done a more humble gracious way of quitting rather than "THIS GAME IS FER NOOBIES IM BETAR THAN ALL OF YOU" maybe we would have some sympathy or be interested in him as a person. As far as the newer players are concerned he is just another elitist asshole who can't control his emotions and thinks he is better than everyone and thinks that SC2 is fer teh nubeis.
On October 06 2010 17:07 Beyonder wrote: This thread is disgusting. Not because it is posted, I want to read this news, but the reactions are sad. Be happy there is someone with an opinion and be happy you can discuss it.
On October 06 2010 16:57 standalone wrote: It saddens me that most people opt to criticize his credentials (or lack of in SC2).
His credentials are probably superior to everyone who has questioned his SC2 performance in this thread.
Perhaps you should question his arguments instead. Argue your point of view if you disagree.
Basically this. The game is most certainly enjoyable, but a large part of what he says is right. And knowing his playstyle, I can understand that this game isn't the most fun for him. There's not that much room for crazy innovatism. It's closer to WC3 than we are willing to admit.
Well proxies are still viable and can lead into an economic advantage. Fast expanding, one basing, all-ins, cheese, etc.. are still in the game and are viable even at the highest levels of play. At the GSL the zerg who won the tournament beat a protoss on Kulas ravine with a freagin 6 pool on cross positions. You can't tell me that doesn't resemble BW pro scene at all, already. The diversity of builds that Fruit Dealer showed, and considering that half of those builds he hadn't even really practiced yet (the nydus cheese anyone?) but they were still potent. The game is just starting. Just because YOU can't think fo things, doesn't mean it's not possible and the future of the game is bleak or something. Just because there isn't a 14 CC on the current map pool possible doesn't mean it won't be possible eventually, somewhere, or something the equivalent of it, because ya know the mineral timing is different, and there are 2 gases. It's a different game, with a different feel, but it's not "hopeless" or stupid or anything.
On October 06 2010 17:07 Beyonder wrote: This thread is disgusting. Not because it is posted, I want to read this news, but the reactions are sad. Be happy there is someone with an opinion and be happy you can discuss it.
On October 06 2010 16:57 standalone wrote: It saddens me that most people opt to criticize his credentials (or lack of in SC2).
His credentials are probably superior to everyone who has questioned his SC2 performance in this thread.
Perhaps you should question his arguments instead. Argue your point of view if you disagree.
Basically this. The game is most certainly enjoyable, but a large part of what he says is correct. And knowing his playstyle, I can understand that this game isn't the most fun for him. There's not that much room for crazy innovatism. It's closer to WC3 than we are willing to admit.
"Noobs won't understand my issues with the game because they're noobs, c'est la vie."
Be happy that someone call you a noob for playing a game you like? I don't mind his opinion, he is maybe correct in some points, but there are ways to say things.
I think he's mainly nostalgic of BW and its elitist players, but I can't disagree with him at all.
I'm seeing SC2 as a bowl where a little bit of BW is put, then a huge portion of War3 and new-genre-RTS games. Can't say I don't frankly like it, but it's his decision. Perhaps he did the right choice (for him), perhaps not. I'd prefer see him quit SC2 than entering into a SC2-related-depression.
Let's not forget SC2 have just begun to be interesting, in fact.
why are u guys saying he should not complain about the game being easy koz he hasn't won any tourneys its exactly the opposite he is implying he says the game is noob friendly, build order orientated, thus every tournament is prolly gonna be win by a different player, with no dominant players we shall see after a few seasons of gsl
Didn't he ragequit BW when replays came out? Not @ the first sign of reps, but people started getting better by watching reps and started beating him then it was / wrist time and vanished?
And his comment about it being like going from F1 to a go-kart is stupid. It's like going from F-1 in the 60s where you had to use a clutch and didn't have all of the new technologies, safety features, and such, to F-1 in the 21st century where a lot less people do, more people have access to being able to compete, more money is circulated, more sponsors, more teams, and best of all, more potential speed for the fans watching.
See F1 is still F1 after 40 years, but the advance of technology has made it change DRAMATICALLY, SC2 is the same way. BW would have been the same had the engine granted it the ability to be played like that. But it didn't. Arguing that performing menial tasks better than someone else makes the game better, is like saying that this basketball is harder to bounce than this one, so the NBA should use the one that's harder to bounce!
I think maybe he was looking for Starcraft 1:The expansion 10 years later, rather than starcraft 2. There are a ton of fundamental changes. From the hard counter system, to new scouting and macroing abilities, to adding a ton of spells, the game is in its infancy. Cool might have brought sc2 on its first step towards a great game. We know blizzard developers are hardcore themselves and they will be supporting this community for many years. Of course there are balance problems, like in all games, but i would have to say that for a newb like me, I am able to win and lose games against similarly skilled people (platinum) of all races. I know i'm not going to be a jaedong or flash, but I still enjoy the game and apparently a lot of really good players do as well. If you don't like the game, quit and just leave it at that. Maybe if cool did something like this, since he has already accomplished the biggest title so far, then we might listen to him a lot more, but coming from someone who isn't in the top 10 of sc2, not many people will even care.
On October 06 2010 17:16 Maggeus wrote: I think he's mainly nostalgic of BW and its elitist players, but I can't disagree with him at all.
I'm seeing SC2 as a bowl where a little bit of BW is put, then a huge portion of War3 and new-genre-RTS games.
My opinion : if the game was just BW with better graphics there will be no reason to make it. But then again its not a reason not to balance it and to make good maps and good mechanics. Blizzard will eventually fix all those points, I hope.
Why should the fact that he enjoyed some form of success in BW somehow make his opinion any better than my own of the game?
Yes, Starcraft 2 is easier to play, there are perhaps a few striking imbalances, but they're hilariously small compared to the balance of 1.0 Starcraft.
It just sounds like he's sad that your average joe can compete a lot more easily.
And what does he mean 'gimmicks'? Are spells all of a sudden gimmicks now?
Being an oldschool bw player... having watched MANY pro's replays, I did not recognize the name NTT, however after just doing a search through my old replays, it appears I do have 2 of his. However, though I may have heard of him (and obviously forgot)... I think I would take these posts alot more seriously if they came from someone like Grrrr, Boxer, Tsunami, Maynard, ElKy, Bluewolf, FroZ!, or Dreame.
But even then, I personally love Starcraft 2, and would likely ignore what they said. This is not Starcraft/Broodwar. Don't expect it to be.
If anyone doesn't like the game, they can feel free to quit. Just don't go calling a game trash that thousands upon thousands of people waited many years for and actually find it quite enjoyable. Even with the flaws in the game, it is still extremely competitive and there is a hell of alot of room for creative play as there was in Broodwar.
On October 06 2010 17:16 m3ss wrote: why are u guys saying he should not complain about the game being easy koz he hasn't won any tourneys its exactly the opposite he is implying he says the game is noob friendly, build order orientated, thus every tournament is prolly gonna be win by a different player, with no dominant players we shall see after a few seasons of gsl
After being involved with another largely competitive gaming scene, Super Smash Brothers (about 3 players have madea bout 50,000+ off of it, it's pretty big, don't argue this with me), they were saying the same thing about Brawl when it came out. A few years later, there are about 2-3 players (Mew2King, DEHF, and Ally) that win pretty much every tournament they go to. The Super Smash 64 people were saying that Melee would be like that (since this guy Isai dominated forever in Super Smash 64 by outpracticing everyone), then Ken came along and dominated for 3 years, Mew2king and a few others for a year, and then Mango forever more till today still.
On October 06 2010 17:19 Shrewmy wrote: Why should the fact that he enjoyed some form of success in BW somehow make his opinion any better than my own of the game?
The "argument" initially presented by some in this thread was "He has had no success in SC2 and therefore his opinion is invalid".
I would say that generally, your opinion is valid based on the actual validity of your opinion and not your achievements. But in some cases achievements may indicate that you know what you are talking about, and that could very well be the case here.
I know nothing of this player myself, but from what I have read in this thread, he seems to have had pretty good knowlegde of BW and to have been a pretty good player. To me, that gives his opinion more weight than say, someone I have never heard of. Especially if I don't know about the subject and am thus unable to verify the validity of an opinion by myself.
Lol. not going to lie... brawl was a horrible game. most people agree with that one. And Mango has a special touch
The only god of gaming that dominates no matter what is Daigo in street fighter. Every other champ just has their days of glory. The biggest equivalent is probably nada. Who nows how it will end up./
lol... pretty funny, i played vs ntt a couple of times on europe and all he did was 2x before supply allin marine scv shit. No wonder he cries that its a bad luckbased game with no micro, he just does noob allins and attack moves. Anyways, I think SC2 is a great game and although there are quite often " luck " wins the more that I practice and analyze, the less i lose to stupid shit builds, so I think that in a year or so the gameplay will be much much better, also sc2 most certainly does not require 60 apm... lol
I think a lot of current progamers kind of echo his views, but there drawn to the seen by the promise of new growth for the esport scene, and thus, professional growth for themselves. I'd certainly want SC2 to succeed if I was a progamer.
Ret had similar opinions of SC2 for instance, but he seems to be playing now.
But then again, SC2 is still young. Who knows what 2 expansions can turn it into.
I like the F1 analogy. I guess it's sad to see an old, not very well known BW pro go, but for every NTT there's a JulyZerg, Boxer, etc. etc.
BW fans need to QQ, if you don't like SC2 there's nothing stopping you from playing BW. What makes me cranky about the quote in the OP is that NTT is complaining about SC2 being noob friendly. Last I checked there weren't any noobs in the GSL...
Besides, if the difference between Jaedong and Zergbong is how quickly they got their drones to the minerals or clicked through their hatcheries, then skill at BW wouldn't exactly be compelling to watch, would it? Of course we all know that that isn't the case.
Last I checked there weren't any noobs in the GSL...
Honestly the level of play from GSL all the way ro8 was often exceptionally poor. Look at Cools "clutch comebacks". The level of play was so bad people felt the psychological need to rationalize that it was staged.
I can understand how he feels. SC2 just isn't as fun as BW, in so many ways.
People shouldn't really argue things like "if the game is so easy why don't you go win a bunch of tournaments", because if it's actually not fun for him to play, then it's not even worth it.
Honestly I wish more people would speak out like this rather than being content with how the game is. I see way too many people who try to argue to the death when anyone tries to say that SC2 isn't fun or is a bad game, and it gets pretty old.
On October 06 2010 17:21 Snippa- wrote: Being an oldschool bw player... having watched MANY pro's replays, I did not recognize the name NTT, however after just doing a search through my old replays, it appears I do have 2 of his. However, though I may have heard of him (and obviously forgot)... I think I would take these posts alot more seriously if they came from someone like Grrrr, Boxer, Tsunami, Maynard, ElKy, Bluewolf, FroZ!, or Dreame.
But even then, I personally love Starcraft 2, and would likely ignore what they said. This is not Starcraft/Broodwar. Don't expect it to be.
If anyone doesn't like the game, they can feel free to quit. Just don't go calling a game trash that thousands upon thousands of people waited many years for and actually find it quite enjoyable. Even with the flaws in the game, it is still extremely competitive and there is a hell of alot of room for creative play as there was in Broodwar.
Ehh, NTT was way more famous than Dreame, probably more famous than Tsunami and bluewolf as well.
On October 06 2010 17:25 adeezy wrote: Lol. not going to lie... brawl was a horrible game. most people agree with that one. And Mango has a special touch
The only god of gaming that dominates no matter what is Daigo in street fighter. Every other champ just has their days of glory. The biggest equivalent is probably nada. Who nows how it will end up./
Well I got warned for being "pompous and arrogant", which is what I accused NTT of, so I'm sure someone likes him and decided to be smart with me. Regardless, I didn't see how I was being arrogant, I was just pointing out the simple fact that this same "the new game in the series is doomed" argument is well pretty much played out. Every single competitive gaming community has said this forever, and big name doom sayers like NTT himself, have been wrong. Brawl is a horrible game in your opinion, but there are more people attending tournaments for it, and it's featured in MLG, and it's doing quite well competitively. The consensus at certain websites is that it is a bad game, but the tournament attendance numbers when compared to it's predecessor prove otherwise. The situation is quite comparable to Starcraft 2 that's why I bring it up, and not because of an attempt to derail the topic.
As far as Street Fighter, Daigo was dramatically dominant in only Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo and SSF3rd Alpha Strike. There are a whole slew of players that were dominant in the some odd 10 other games in the series of Street Fighter at many different times. There are American players who have beaten Daigo, and a lot of Japanese players who have beaten Daigo at national tourneys. He is far from the level of a Boxer, Nada, or Flash in achievements.
Doomsayers such as NTT are to be taken with a grain of salt. It's not like just because he says it's horrible, it actually is horrible.
His arguments are that there is no diversity in the game, that is wrong. He played Terran which has at least 10 openings for every race, that are all pretty viable, and can lead in to many different unit comps and play styles. Protoss is the same, just a little less diversity, and thanks to players like Fruit Dealer we are seeing zerg can play viably in many different build orders and styles. It's not as much a roll of the dice as he is suggesting, and if he wants to make a statement like that he should have proven it. The starcraft community demands a lot of proof behind claims of things being overpowered, inbalanced, so why hasn't he provided it to back up his points?
He claimed like I said that SC2 dumbs down the game. He hasn't demonstrated that. When things are automated (like his F1 example where they have paddle shifters now, which significantly changes the level of technical skill required, that I mentioned earlier) it just means that the already present level of someones technical abilities will be divided elsewhere. Now things like unit control will actually be pretty high level, controlling multiple groups is still important, good positioning, all of that. He is just plain wrong in saying the game is less technical, and plenty of big names here have openly laughed at him pompously and arrogantly (heh) in this very thread for being a person who just spammed out bunkers and planetary fortresses. I haven't researched this to find out if it is true or not, but I am working off his claim that there is no diversity in this game. If it's not proven to be true, it is currently false until proven otherwise.
I was reading the link to the EU forums and came across this post. And I can't help but wonder if he's right and this is all a typical NTT troll blown out of proportion.
On October 06 2010 16:22 adeezy wrote: I have full faith in blizzard that by the end of the 2nd expansion most of these problems will be addressed in some form. However not everyone will be pleased lol.
well he complained about MBS , i doubt they will be fixing that in the expansion or in any future fixes
the issues he are talking about are what he sees as fundamental flaws , they won't be changed in the future
This makes you wonder what will be the future of Starcraft 2 competitive gaming, especially if you consider the big BW players that have just moved (or is planning to move) to SC2.
What do you think? Is this a preview of what is to come, or is NTT just rage-quitting? :/ (obviously, it should be noted that this might just be a troll from NTT, but it's kind of a harsh troll if so)
I don't think an emotion induced rage quit of sc2 has any baring on whether or not Starcraft 2 and competitive gaming will or will not be successful in the future. Starcraft 2 is a different game, but its fundamentals are incredibly similar to Brood War especially compared to other hit RTS sequels. In that regard Starcraft 2 should mirror the success that Brood War had.
There will always be people who long for "the good ol days" and it seems as if NTT is one of them.
On October 06 2010 17:25 adeezy wrote: Lol. not going to lie... brawl was a horrible game. most people agree with that one. And Mango has a special touch
The only god of gaming that dominates no matter what is Daigo in street fighter. Every other champ just has their days of glory. The biggest equivalent is probably nada. Who nows how it will end up./
Well I got warned for being "pompous and arrogant", which is what I accused NTT of, so I'm sure someone likes him and decided to be smart with me. Regardless, I didn't see how I was being arrogant, I was just pointing out the simple fact that this same "the new game in the series is doomed" argument is well pretty much played out. Every single competitive gaming community has said this forever, and big name doom sayers like NTT himself, have been wrong. Brawl is a horrible game in your opinion, but there are more people attending tournaments for it, and it's featured in MLG, and it's doing quite well competitively. The consensus at certain websites is that it is a bad game, but the tournament attendance numbers when compared to it's predecessor prove otherwise. The situation is quite comparable to Starcraft 2 that's why I bring it up, and not because of an attempt to derail the topic.
Brawl is a terrible game and the fact that MLG features it doesnt mean anything as MLG features lots of casual (imo terrible) games.
Brawl was aiming for a casual scene from the start (and by casual I mean I don't think they thought too much about the competitive scene while making it), but Starcraft II is aiming for Esport from the start, thus the situation isnt exactly the same even though there are similarities.
On October 06 2010 17:07 Beyonder wrote: This thread is disgusting. Not because it is posted, I want to read this news, but the reactions are sad. Be happy there is someone with an opinion and be happy you can discuss it.
On October 06 2010 16:57 standalone wrote: It saddens me that most people opt to criticize his credentials (or lack of in SC2).
His credentials are probably superior to everyone who has questioned his SC2 performance in this thread.
Perhaps you should question his arguments instead. Argue your point of view if you disagree.
Basically this. The game is most certainly enjoyable, but a large part of what he says is correct. And knowing his playstyle, I can understand that this game isn't the most fun for him. There's not that much room for crazy innovatism. It's closer to WC3 than we are willing to admit.
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
Drama queen out.
How is this an opinion that can be discussed? If anyone had posted that piece of trash here it would have landed in the closed section faster than you can spell NTT.
Let us look at the rest of his comments:
The game is just not demanding enough mechanically. It's just gimmicks upon gimmicks upon gimmicks. Maps are horrendous, balance is non existent, gameplay is straightjacketed, and monkeys can be trained to execute some of these build orders. 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. From Brood War to this is like going from F1 to a go-kart.
So basically he means that every tournament is based on luck. If anyone else here had stated that Cool won the GSL purely based on luck they would be in disneyland.
I gave the game an honest chance, but it's trash, sorry to say. Gave a bunch of free wins in my last 10 or so games. Might do some more insta f10-n'ing should I feel generous. If anyone poor needs an account, you can have this one as soon as Blizzard allows the free name change.
Is this even worth commenting? Its more banworthy than newsworthy, had it been posted here.
Noobs won't understand my issues with the game because they're noobs, c'est la vie.
Hmm, let me try to recall TL's view on martyrdom and painting any potential critic as a newb...
Sorry if you are going to miss a fellow player and countryman Beyonder, but there is nothing here to give him any credit whatsoever.
And regarding credentials, newbs discuss Flash and Jaedong all day long, what makes him so special? Let's compare him to Nada and see how that works out, both in credentials and how his views are represented. Then again Nada is probably going to redefine what SC2 mechanics are.
anyway, I think he's got a point. When I watch someone like Cella.Werra with his 180 APM or so being a high ranked diamond player one comes to the conclusion that the skill ceiling has indeed to be pretty low.
But maybe the Expansion pack will bring some action
So basically he means that every tournament is based on luck. If anyone else here had stated that Cool won the GSL purely based on luck they would be in disneyland.
Cool won the GSL because of luck. Not purely because of luck, hes an exceptional RTS player. So saying he won it purely because of luck would be pretty disrespectful. Besides that, theres nothing banworthy about that statement. Go look at his games in the RO8. If that wasn't "luck", I don't know what is.
I think people saying, "a lot of pros play sc2 instead of bw so it must be a better game" need to realize that playing bw as a foreigner led to almost no opportunities and very little money/sponsorship because nobody cared about it outside of Korea and playing it at a korean-level was damn near impossible.
So basically he means that every tournament is based on luck. If anyone else here had stated that Cool won the GSL purely based on luck they would be in disneyland.
Cool won the GSL because of luck. Not purely because of luck, hes an exceptional RTS player. So saying he won it purely because of luck would be pretty disrespectful. Besides that, theres nothing banworthy about that statement. Go look at his games in the RO8. If that wasn't "luck", I don't know what is.
The only real luck he had was the 6 pool in that series. 2nd game Inca just played kinda bad/greedy not really sure the right word to use and it costed him the game due to an open front. I wouldn't call that luck cool noticed and reacted to it.
Cool won the GSL because he out played his opponents and played strongly in most of his games. I just don't see the "luck" in that. Was it luck that he 3-0'd his ro4 opponent?
The spoiler spoils the results of the finals I know for some reason some people don't know the results or whatever and rage hard when the results are posted so yeah ^^.
He also almost 4-1'd ITR I just don't see the "luck" at all for winning the GSL.
Also too note sucks a player like this doesn't like the game while I disagree with his views sounds like he was a really talented player in BW back and all that (I was not around back then in terms of I didn't touch starcraft until June 2009 rofl and boy do I wish I had played it earlier)
Im not supprised after watching how NTT plays. Gotta be abit boring after 500 games to go PF on your natural with bunkers around it while teching for BC's.
I agree that some units are really gimmicky tho, and doesnt make for fun gameplay. I wish they had never made void ray, even tho i dont see it much.
On October 06 2010 17:51 PallasAthena wrote: the game hasn't even been out that long >_>
broodwar wasn't perfect the day it came out right?
you really should stop with that. when BW came out didnt need to be balanced, as nobody cared, it was a game in 98. now in 2010 WoL is an e-sport, people live out of it, there are tens of thousands who care about it in some way beyound actual playing, either playing it competitevly or being fan of someone, being a reporter, caster etc. Tones of money on the line. It needs to be perfect. Or at least it should look like tey are trying to make it that way. As far as i ve seen Blizz, they are trying hard to make a statisic that supprots that the game is good, and ignore every other stats which says it's not, and release every 2 month a patch which modifies something slightly.
On October 06 2010 17:25 adeezy wrote: Lol. not going to lie... brawl was a horrible game. most people agree with that one. And Mango has a special touch
The only god of gaming that dominates no matter what is Daigo in street fighter. Every other champ just has their days of glory. The biggest equivalent is probably nada. Who nows how it will end up./
I was just pointing out the simple fact that this same "the new game in the series is doomed" argument is well pretty much played out. Every single competitive gaming community has said this forever, and big name doom sayers like NTT himself, have been wrong.
sometimes the doomsayers are wrong, sure, but that doesn't mean they always are and always will be. what would you call quake 4? unreal tournament 3? unreal tournament 2003? tekken 4?
other games are irrelevant as proof sc2 either can or can not be a reputable esport. only sc2 can speak to that.
On October 06 2010 17:25 standalone wrote: I know nothing of this player myself, but from what I have read in this thread, he seems to have had pretty good knowlegde of BW and to have been a pretty good player. To me, that gives his opinion more weight than say, someone I have never heard of. Especially if I don't know about the subject and am thus unable to verify the validity of an opinion by myself.
I would argue that his knowledge of BW actually makes him less qualified to critique SC2 than someone who never played BW, since as a BW player NTT would have certain expectations and such that SC2 is certainly not required to meet. In other words, SC2 is not Brood War. Of course, there are similarities, but if you're expecting everything to be the same as X, why not just stick with X? No reason to throw words like "trash" around.
I've never even heard of NTT (I'm really only familiar with the Korean pro scene), but even his word choice is kind of irritating and pretentious. Gimmicks? Really?
I'm not saying everything in SC2 is awesome, well thought-out, balanced, etc etc. But what I want to stress most is the fact that SC2 is not BW, and that BW wasn't exactly perfect from the beginning either (lolzerg). Just give it some time.
I was just pointing out the simple fact that this same "the new game in the series is doomed" argument is well pretty much played out. Every single competitive gaming community has said this forever, and big name doom sayers like NTT himself, have been wrong.
Not really. Perhaps you're thinking of WoW. Which is a different story. Generally doom sayers have been right, rare has a truly competitive game become better with a sequel.
As Lachyrmose pointed out.
In the end, CS source is still a fun game with some money in it thought T-T. But I kinda wished SC2 would rival the original.
On October 06 2010 17:25 standalone wrote: I know nothing of this player myself, but from what I have read in this thread, he seems to have had pretty good knowlegde of BW and to have been a pretty good player. To me, that gives his opinion more weight than say, someone I have never heard of. Especially if I don't know about the subject and am thus unable to verify the validity of an opinion by myself.
I would argue that his knowledge of BW actually makes him less qualified to critique SC2 than someone who never played BW, since as a BW player NTT would have certain expectations and such that SC2 is certainly not required to meet. In other words, SC2 is not Brood War. Of course, there are similarities, but if you're expecting everything to be the same as X, why not just stick with X? No reason to throw words like "trash" around.
I've never even heard of NTT (I'm really only familiar with the Korean pro scene), but even his word choice is kind of irritating and pretentious. Gimmicks? Really?
I'm not saying everything in SC2 is awesome, well thought-out, balanced, etc etc. But what I want to stress most is the fact that SC2 is not BW, and that BW wasn't exactly perfect from the beginning either (lolzerg). Just give it some time.
You are absolutely right; BW and SC2 are different games.
But they are both RTS games and they resemble each other a lot. Having good knowlegde of one will help in the other. There are also more general skills that are not specific to the game that a good player may have which could add weight to their opinion.
But by all means, I understand your point.
And yes, I don't like his attitude either. But unfortunately having a bad attitude is not exactly rare in the gaming community.
I agree on your last point as well: Give it time. I think the game is going to change over time as things get tested and discovered.
On October 06 2010 17:51 PallasAthena wrote: the game hasn't even been out that long >_>
broodwar wasn't perfect the day it came out right?
you really should stop with that. when BW came out didnt need to be balanced, as nobody cared, it was a game in 98. now in 2010 WoL is an e-sport, people live out of it, there are tens of thousands who care about it in some way beyound actual playing, either playing it competitevly or being fan of someone, being a reporter, caster etc. Tones of money on the line. It needs to be perfect. Or at least it should look like tey are trying to make it that way. As far as i ve seen Blizz, they are trying hard to make a statisic that supprots that the game is good, and ignore every other stats which says it's not, and release every 2 month a patch which modifies something slightly.
Just wondering what all these stats are that says the game is not good? The fact that millions of players play and enjoy it every day? the fact that it has sold millions of copies and got impeccable review scores? The fact that people are willing to make a career out of playing it? The fact that, while the game is not perfectly balanced, it's still balanced enough that the 3 major tournaments so far have been won by a Terran, a Protoss and a Zerg respectively? The fact that some of the greatest RTS gamers of all time such as Boxer, NaDa, JulyZerg and Madfrog are actively playing the game competitively?
Where are these overwhelming stats that say the game isn't good?
Reading through this thread it seems to me that NTT just can't handle change. He can still play BW it hasn't gone anywhere. Critcism is fine. Throwing tantrums and acting like a little baby is not. Doing the same strat every game and refusing to make certain units is laughable. Nothing new here just more of the old who can't evolve getting frustrated that it isn't something that came before. News flash SC2 is a completely different game. It isn't BW and it will never will be.
i don't get NTT's comments about randomly chosen build orders winning games. the game is new and ppl are still bringing out different BOs, even if they're only slightly altered. also balance changes are going to change build orders, even if not immediately. what is "standard" seems to change in varying degrees every couple of months, and ladder play is going to seem rly random of course since i assume even top tier diamond players decide to try different stuff quite often.
i'm not sure about his comments on gimmicks, either. gimmicks are generally things that aren't standard within a game (or the metagame), and he's listing standard things?
The game might change, but what wont change I think is that it seems impossible to execute solid managment styles and 70% of top level play atm is really decided by luck such as dumb allin builds, lucky drops/pushes and idiotic spawn positions.
Kind of sad to see people flailing around like idiots trying to discredit NTT... His points are valid and if the game is going to be a long term success they have to be addressed.
Why do people feel it is their duty to defend every decision Blizzard has made when they have honestly made some very poor ones game design wise.
This thread isn't really the place to discuss it but can anyone honestly argue that units like Marauders or Thors (just as 2 examples) lead to fun and exciting gameplay?
NTT is a good guy, he is obviously just pissed at how SC2 turned out after BW was such a great game - he obviously loves Starcraft. I am in a similar boat (though not quite as pissed) but I still hope Blizzard will make improvements to some of the uninteresting game mechanics they introduced in Starcraft 2. I love the Starcraft series but Starcraft 2 just doesn't quite live up to the Starcraft name.
I agree on your last point as well: Give it time. I think the game is going to change over time as things get tested and discovered.
Like Phasing? Like Mineral Boosting? Like Infestor Burrow Casting?
THIS!!!!!
i believe blizzards attitude to removing these "bugs" rather then leaving them in is what in the long run will kill sc2.
for example instead of removing fazing, why not slightly reduce void rays uncharged damage and keep it in. that way you can see clutch battles that the pros can pull off that if done well enough can pull games around. it wasnt gamebreaking at all. it just allowed for top level players to use to turn battles around.
mineral boosting. it never was an issue, no one ever lost games because their opponent used it and they didnt. honestly no reason to remove it. or at least put it into the low priority basket (along with balancing zerg *wink*
infestor burrow casting as well. its SOO apm intensive that it would be great for top level play to see it being pulled off to turn games around. BUT NO some scrub winge'd along with all their low level friends on the bnet forums and got their way.
every time these nifty little features pops up it gets removed right away. imagine BW without muta stacking, vulture patrol micro, valkryie patrol micro and such. these small little ai "bugs: made the game what it was.
and blizzard is removing them left right and centre, which eventually will kill sc2.
On October 06 2010 18:24 4Servy wrote: The game might change, but what wont change I think is that it seems impossible to execute solid managment styles and 70% of top level play atm is really decided by luck such as dumb allin builds, lucky drops/pushes and idiotic spawn positions.
Yep, it's obvious that FruitDealer lucked is way through the GSL and allin'd his way to the championship title.
Honestly, the "whole game is based on luck and build guessing" argument is getting pretty tired, there's a fair bit of evidence out there that this isn't the case, at least no more so than in BW.
On October 06 2010 15:50 SonuvBob wrote: I bet it's really about the lower SCV health.
Rofl so true <3
Tbh just give it more time. I don't understand why he's bitching about mbs because tbh even though it has been waaaaaaaay easier for terran than in sc1 it's still an rts. What i don't really like are the hardcounters. I just hope blizz will nerf a little bit all of this and make some units worthwile to play throughout the entire game (hello glings becoming useless past t2 ? Even t3 with adrenal isn't enough except for backstabing, but that's about it) but hey i'm talking about balances issues which has been already talked thousand times.
I guess i could have said the same about sc1 being easy to play since i could easily f2 f3 f4 all my bases whereas it's a little too far for sc2 with f5 f6 f7 f8 ? What i'm saying is, we need to be purely objective and see sc2 with an other perspective. Sure the game is easy to train but i still believe it'll be hard to master.
As much as I wish burrow casting was around as the next guy.I dont understand why people make it such a big deal to have SC2 as a higher APM game. I see a lot of posts saying BW is better because SC2 makes so many things easier that required APM. I for one think that since a lot of these APM old necessities are out it allows people to focus more on what makes play good, which is strategy and other types of micro. Theres no doubt that the things Cool is able to do to defend against drops (zerglings, infestor use, mutas), requires brood war level micro. Well it'd be harder in brood war of course =P
i understand them removing mineral boosting simply because of mules and i assume blizzard figured some BOs would come to early for players that did it. i was just starting to incorporate it a couple of weeks before the patch though :\
I agree on your last point as well: Give it time. I think the game is going to change over time as things get tested and discovered.
Like Phasing? Like Mineral Boosting? Like Infestor Burrow Casting?
THIS!!!!!
i believe blizzards attitude to removing these "bugs" rather then leaving them in is what in the long run will kill sc2.
for example instead of removing fazing, why not slightly reduce void rays uncharged damage and keep it in. that way you can see clutch battles that the pros can pull off that if done well enough can pull games around. it wasnt gamebreaking at all. it just allowed for top level players to use to turn battles around.
mineral boosting. it never was an issue, no one ever lost games because their opponent used it and they didnt. honestly no reason to remove it. or at least put it into the low priority basket (along with balancing zerg *wink*
infestor burrow casting as well. its SOO apm intensive that it would be great for top level play to see it being pulled off to turn games around. BUT NO some scrub winge'd along with all their low level friends on the bnet forums and got their way.
every time these nifty little features pops up it gets removed right away. imagine BW without muta stacking, vulture patrol micro, valkryie patrol micro and such. these small little ai "bugs: made the game what it was.
and blizzard is removing them left right and centre, which eventually will kill sc2.
Fazing obviously did way too much damage, something had to change. Mineral boosting, I agree, didn't really serve a purpose to begin with. Burrowed casting was NOT APM intensive. All it took was a simple queue of 2 or 3 clicks. Unburrowing to cast it takes 2 clicks and you CAN'T queue it, that's just as impressive. If you liked that you'll love it when Terrans figure out how to have flying planetary fortresses.
There are bound to be people who react like this. You've got to expect some degree of it. The game is a LOT more user friendly than the previous, and it probably bothers really "good" players when someone with half the APM can even put up a decent fight.
There is always going to be BW, that won't change. I still find SC2 interesting. I have the pleasure of watching some really good players, along with playing in some games myself... so far that tells me that skill and awareness are still the #1 determinants of game outcome. While secondary factors may be more substantial than in BW, its still a good game in my opinion.
This is nothing new from NTT, read some of his older freak outs.
Anyway, the people that have 0 idea who he is and are going whatever, NTT was one of the better BW players from his era and it would be a real shame if he quit because he probably could have brought a lot to the game.
i think this is a general opinion of the progamers (and not only ) about sc2, the only ones who are playing it are the ones who can't compete more in bw scene. and they whant some easy money
On October 06 2010 18:23 taintmachine wrote: i don't get NTT's comments about randomly chosen build orders winning games. the game is new and ppl are still bringing out different BOs, even if they're only slightly altered. also balance changes are going to change build orders, even if not immediately. what is "standard" seems to change in varying degrees every couple of months, and ladder play is going to seem rly random of course since i assume even top tier diamond players decide to try different stuff quite often.
I play hellion drop, he has void rays. I play void rays, he massed marines. I opt 3 gate, stargate, he went 4 gate all-in. I go 15 hatch, he went off rax reaper.
I had issues with Fazing and Mineral boosting, because they didn't really add much skill to the game.
If you would compare it to, say, Baneling carpet bombing, which does require a bit of skill and game sense to pull off, yet requires the same amount of clicks, possibly less.
The thing is, we're in 2010. Gaming should have evolved to a state such that the base mechanics of the game should be extremely easy to do. However, I should say that all the other mechanics should be tweaked so that it does require more APM/decisions/reactions in other areas. Basically, all other races should have something similar to creep spread, a mechanic that we don't see as much in lower level tiers but is absolutely necessary in higher tiers.
The only reason SC1 is harder then SC2 is because SC1 units act like they are mentally challenged. Ooh look, I told my drone to go mine, ohh snap, he's gonna run 15 laps around the base before he starts. "Sup, im a bw player, im better then you cuz i mastered the worst ai in the history of videogames."
I beat NTT afew times in beta, and he raged quite bad. Its quite sad to see such an awesome oldschool SC player being such a baby now =[ Oh well, guess he cant adapt, like a lot of oldschool players.
On October 06 2010 19:12 grudgeStar wrote: The only reason SC1 is harder then SC2 is because SC1 units act like they are mentally challenged. Ooh look, I told my drone to go mine, ohh snap, he's gonna run 15 laps around the base before he starts. "Sup, im a bw player, im better then you cuz i mastered the worst ai in the history of videogames."
Which leads to flanks and catching otherwise superior armies out of position. Even Flash lines up his marines in a lot of games, which adds an interesting layer of gameplay. Not speaking of MBS or walling in or using actual micro tricks instead of auto-surround, but they also contributed to it's hardness.
What a load of rubbish, how dare he diss the players and the game
He loved the game when he, every game would set up a 2x bunkers, expand, then slow down the oppossing player forcing him to waste workers and ressources to break through while he would salavage his bunkers, run his marines back and expand himself
He did this EVERY GODDAMN GAME, then people figured it out and he beat the snot out of him becuase he could not adapt and he had no other strategy, that was all he had, those 2 bunkers at the start.
No wonder he quit, losing 59 of your 68 matches cant be fun
He simply could not play straight up against any of the top players, he couldnt even handle 4-5 Phoenix's from Socke, he could not handle a damn thing
He is the epitome of a gimmick player: find a strat that works and keep doing it, eventually people figure you and your one trick pony ass out and beat you with ease.
I agree on your last point as well: Give it time. I think the game is going to change over time as things get tested and discovered.
Like Phasing? Like Mineral Boosting? Like Infestor Burrow Casting?
THIS!!!!!
i believe blizzards attitude to removing these "bugs" rather then leaving them in is what in the long run will kill sc2.
for example instead of removing fazing, why not slightly reduce void rays uncharged damage and keep it in. that way you can see clutch battles that the pros can pull off that if done well enough can pull games around. it wasnt gamebreaking at all. it just allowed for top level players to use to turn battles around.
mineral boosting. it never was an issue, no one ever lost games because their opponent used it and they didnt. honestly no reason to remove it. or at least put it into the low priority basket (along with balancing zerg *wink*
infestor burrow casting as well. its SOO apm intensive that it would be great for top level play to see it being pulled off to turn games around. BUT NO some scrub winge'd along with all their low level friends on the bnet forums and got their way.
every time these nifty little features pops up it gets removed right away. imagine BW without muta stacking, vulture patrol micro, valkryie patrol micro and such. these small little ai "bugs: made the game what it was.
and blizzard is removing them left right and centre, which eventually will kill sc2.
Fazing obviously did way too much damage, something had to change. Mineral boosting, I agree, didn't really serve a purpose to begin with. Burrowed casting was NOT APM intensive. All it took was a simple queue of 2 or 3 clicks. Unburrowing to cast it takes 2 clicks and you CAN'T queue it, that's just as impressive. If you liked that you'll love it when Terrans figure out how to have flying planetary fortresses.
On October 06 2010 19:12 grudgeStar wrote: The only reason SC1 is harder then SC2 is because SC1 units act like they are mentally challenged. Ooh look, I told my drone to go mine, ohh snap, he's gonna run 15 laps around the base before he starts. "Sup, im a bw player, im better then you cuz i mastered the worst ai in the history of videogames."
To be honest, pathing AI in SC2 is pretty fucking retarded too. Trying to walk past units or obstacles can be a challenge with workers.
On October 06 2010 19:18 Raevin wrote: What a load of rubbish, how dare he diss the players and the game
He loved the game when he, every game would set up a 2x bunkers, expand, then slow down the oppossing player forcing him to waste workers and ressources to break through while he would salavage his bunkers, run his marines back and expand himself
He did this EVERY GODDAMN GAME, then people figured it out and he beat the snot out of him becuase he could not adapt and he had no other strategy, that was all he had, those 2 bunkers at the start.
No wonder he quit, losing 59 of your 68 matches cant be fun
He simply could not play straight up against any of the top players, he couldnt even handle 4-5 Phoenix's from Socke, he could not handle a damn thing
He is the epitome of a gimmick player: find a strat that works and keep doing it, eventually people figure you and your one trick pony ass out and beat you with ease.
Somehow I have to agree with this. I've been playing against him on my own and I've faced this every time I met him. The game is new, you have to test everything, every BO. If it's good, you might play it, if it gets countered, you change something. There is no point to whine since it's just a beggining. If you don't like the game or it doesn't give you any fun, you can quit, nobody is asking someone to play. So its our decision if we want to play competetively or not. If you do, you need to spend A LOT of time to succeed.
On October 06 2010 16:18 Piski wrote: I don't understand people rage quitting saying the game is too easy but not actually accomplishing anything. I remember NTT from bw days and I was even excited that he was playing SC2. That said I can't remember him doing anything worth mentioning in SC2, but I could be wrong.
Is the game easier than bw? Well hell yes, but not easy enough that just anyone could go to a tournament and win it.
game is easy =/= easy to win
See that's the mentality I don't get. Some BW players honestly seem to treat this less like a chess match with explosions and more like a Rubik's Cube solving contest. Yeah, it's pretty impressive if someone has good macro but I really find a strategy game is far more interesting when you're seeing TLO force a tank retreat with a nuke that gets cancelled as his own tanks siege up.
Cool, you can manually send workers to minerals on four bases and shuffle through 9 factories and 3 starports. Logistics is not exactly the most thrilling part of war.
Saying that SC2 is a bad game because the setup to having your armies is more streamlined is like saying chess is a bad game because any five year old could physically move a rook forward three spaces.
To the people who don't know him: I absolutely loved his play when he was a good BW player. Very macro-based, but also very timing-based. I watched a great deal of his battlereports.com (and later replays when those became available) and to me he was one of the 'big' foreigners before everything got smoothed out, in the same group with Tsunami, GGSlayer, Grrrr etc.
So while his post is mostly rant, I'm still interested in his points. Especially the time management part...
edit: Thinking of it, one of the ways he'd beat players was to out-macro them so hard they had no clue what to do. He'd get 5 bases at the time you'd get 1, be outnumbered army-wise, but he'd count on you not having enough concentration to keep up scouting and levelling bases all over the map, and then catch up and beat you. That's certainly become harder in sc2...
On October 06 2010 16:18 Piski wrote: I don't understand people rage quitting saying the game is too easy but not actually accomplishing anything. I remember NTT from bw days and I was even excited that he was playing SC2. That said I can't remember him doing anything worth mentioning in SC2, but I could be wrong.
Is the game easier than bw? Well hell yes, but not easy enough that just anyone could go to a tournament and win it.
game is easy =/= easy to win
See that's the mentality I don't get. Some BW players honestly seem to treat this less like a chess match with explosions and more like a Rubik's Cube solving contest. Yeah, it's pretty impressive if someone has good macro but I really find a strategy game is far more interesting when you're seeing TLO force a tank retreat with a nuke that gets cancelled as his own tanks siege up.
Cool, you can manually send workers to minerals on four bases and shuffle through 9 factories and 3 starports. Logistics is not exactly the most thrilling part of war.
Saying that SC2 is a bad game because the setup to having your armies is more streamlined is like saying chess is a bad game because any five year old could physically move a rook forward three spaces.
The Chess comparison is so far off base whenever someone does it it's actually scary. Just stop please. It's a little bit disgusting.
I agree on your last point as well: Give it time. I think the game is going to change over time as things get tested and discovered.
Like Phasing? Like Mineral Boosting? Like Infestor Burrow Casting?
THIS!!!!!
i believe blizzards attitude to removing these "bugs" rather then leaving them in is what in the long run will kill sc2.
for example instead of removing fazing, why not slightly reduce void rays uncharged damage and keep it in. that way you can see clutch battles that the pros can pull off that if done well enough can pull games around. it wasnt gamebreaking at all. it just allowed for top level players to use to turn battles around.
mineral boosting. it never was an issue, no one ever lost games because their opponent used it and they didnt. honestly no reason to remove it. or at least put it into the low priority basket (along with balancing zerg *wink*
infestor burrow casting as well. its SOO apm intensive that it would be great for top level play to see it being pulled off to turn games around. BUT NO some scrub winge'd along with all their low level friends on the bnet forums and got their way.
every time these nifty little features pops up it gets removed right away. imagine BW without muta stacking, vulture patrol micro, valkryie patrol micro and such. these small little ai "bugs: made the game what it was.
and blizzard is removing them left right and centre, which eventually will kill sc2.
Fazing obviously did way too much damage, something had to change. Mineral boosting, I agree, didn't really serve a purpose to begin with. Burrowed casting was NOT APM intensive. All it took was a simple queue of 2 or 3 clicks. Unburrowing to cast it takes 2 clicks and you CAN'T queue it, that's just as impressive. If you liked that you'll love it when Terrans figure out how to have flying planetary fortresses.
FLYING planetary fortresses??
For a second I thought this was an unknown bug
???!!???? Show plz so I can surprise someone with it.
Why even debate BW vs SC2, it seems many of you do not even know how NTT played SC2?
He was a gimmicky player, he had the exact same oppening every match with 2 bunkers, fast expand and like i posted once people figured this out they beat him with very little difficulty.
You are giving too much credit to a player who was more focused on winning rather than learning new strats and trying out different things, once his one and only oppening stopped working, he started losing
That is really the bottom line, instead of blaming himself and his lack of desire to learn he has decided to blast the game instead and call others for "cheesing" when he himself is the epitome of it.
No player in the history of Brood War, Warcraft 3 and surely SC2 was able to stick to 1 single strat and keep doing it forever, they all got caught with their pants down and beaten on until they either quit or learned new tricks.
On October 06 2010 19:43 Numy wrote: The Chess comparison is so far off base whenever someone does it it's actually scary. Just stop please. It's a little bit disgusting.
It's really not my fault you're incapable of understanding what an analogy is.
I'm not saying SC2 is chess. I'm saying it's more about strategy than mechanics learned by rote.
I think it is a pretty natural phenomenon that some former greats that went back to SC2 competetively now quit the game. But I guess this is less to the fact that the game itself is lacking but more because they do not belong to the very best of the contemporary player pool and thus they have more to loose than to gain. I think remembering the "glorious old days" where you used to reign the bnet wheras now it`s difficult to stand out skillwise must be a demotivating feeling.
This guy is almost as old as WhiteRa. I'm 24 and I feel like my hands are already irredeemably slow. There had been this age limit of 28 on floors of stock markets long before pro gaming was established. That is because scientists calculated that a broker's mechanical reaction dramatically slows down after the age of 28.
On October 06 2010 19:18 Raevin wrote: What a load of rubbish, how dare he diss the players and the game
He loved the game when he, every game would set up a 2x bunkers, expand, then slow down the oppossing player forcing him to waste workers and ressources to break through while he would salavage his bunkers, run his marines back and expand himself
He did this EVERY GODDAMN GAME, then people figured it out and he beat the snot out of him becuase he could not adapt and he had no other strategy, that was all he had, those 2 bunkers at the start.
No wonder he quit, losing 59 of your 68 matches cant be fun
He simply could not play straight up against any of the top players, he couldnt even handle 4-5 Phoenix's from Socke, he could not handle a damn thing
He is the epitome of a gimmick player: find a strat that works and keep doing it, eventually people figure you and your one trick pony ass out and beat you with ease.
Somehow I have to agree with this. I've been playing against him on my own and I've faced this every time I met him. The game is new, you have to test everything, every BO. If it's good, you might play it, if it gets countered, you change something. There is no point to whine since it's just a beggining. If you don't like the game or it doesn't give you any fun, you can quit, nobody is asking someone to play. So its our decision if we want to play competetively or not. If you do, you need to spend A LOT of time to succeed.
Good Luck, NTT~
Didn't know you were playing Arew! One of my favorite BW foreign Protosses :D
Anyways, people have said it, some of us have seen it, and no one should be surprised given NTT's history of shittalking and his attempt to abuse a build.
Not really newsworthy, as he hadn't really done much, although he had made Q2 for IEM Europeans, facing White-Ra tomorrow. Wonder whether he'll play that out or not.
Easy games get boring quickly. Referring to Terran here of course. I've seen many Terrans leave because all they do is get the "correct" build order. And of course I mean MMM of any sort.
On October 06 2010 20:07 hadoken5 wrote: Easy games get boring quickly. Referring to Terran here of course. I've seen many Terrans leave because all they do is get the "correct" build order. And of course I mean MMM of any sort.
On October 06 2010 16:18 Piski wrote: I don't understand people rage quitting saying the game is too easy but not actually accomplishing anything. I remember NTT from bw days and I was even excited that he was playing SC2. That said I can't remember him doing anything worth mentioning in SC2, but I could be wrong.
Is the game easier than bw? Well hell yes, but not easy enough that just anyone could go to a tournament and win it.
game is easy =/= easy to win
See that's the mentality I don't get. Some BW players honestly seem to treat this less like a chess match with explosions and more like a Rubik's Cube solving contest. Yeah, it's pretty impressive if someone has good macro but I really find a strategy game is far more interesting when you're seeing TLO force a tank retreat with a nuke that gets cancelled as his own tanks siege up.
Cool, you can manually send workers to minerals on four bases and shuffle through 9 factories and 3 starports. Logistics is not exactly the most thrilling part of war.
Saying that SC2 is a bad game because the setup to having your armies is more streamlined is like saying chess is a bad game because any five year old could physically move a rook forward three spaces.
The exciting part is making lots of correct decisions in an environment that forces you to perform lots of actions to stay in the game. Some players are well known for smart play and not too well for mechanics, say hyvaa. Others have not too smart play, below average macro yet OMFG what the christ muta micro, say Modesty. Some players have insane macro, but are lacking in micro in some matchups, like BeSt. This allows for a variety of playstyles, because mastering everything is ridiculously hard. Lots of people like this. As for creative play, it tends to be discouraged in hard counter based environments, because there are just less viable options. You might also want to check out this:
What NTT and other people are saying (if I understand it correctly), is that the entry level has been lowered in SC2; better accessibility for the casual gamer. And supposedly, this has lead the game to be revolving around luck and gimmicks.
Ok... I can understand people expressing these opinions. But in my view this game is still being played by two armchair generals (in 1v1 at least), both are playing the same version of the game and thus have equal luck factors. And before people start pointing out that balance issues don't allow equal amounts of luck... we are now playing SC2 a little shy of 2 months after the release, two expansions still have to come out, and another few years of patching most likely.
The famous BW balance wasn't achieved in a matter of weeks, and neither will be the balance in SC2. Have some patience and have fun along the way.
And like Johan Cruijff (famous Dutch football player (and for our American TLers, I mean soccer )) said once: "You have to force luck in order to win the game".
Whenever someone complains about mbs or how sc2 is for noobs it becomes impossible for me to tell if they're doing it because they legitimately feel that sc2 is orders of magnitude worse then bw or if they are just raging.
I can understand the opinion that bw > sc2 that you would just not have as much fun playing one compared to playing the other. I played dota, but refuse to touch hon for the sole reason that they increased the game speed. It simply is not the same gameplay that i enjoyed anymore. That's what I feel these players are trying to say, but it comes out as nerd elitism. "Lol you play sc2? you're a complete noob! I'm not a noob that's why I'm playing a game for real men!"
I don't get the sentiment at all, if the game is so easy and noob friendly. why isn't he winning every tournament he enters. The sign of a skill level is that the best players rise to the top and you see familiar names winning most of the tournaments, occasionally you'll see an unknown play well enough to cause an upset. Last time I checked, There have been lots of small tournaments and 3 Major post release tournaments, being IEM, MLG and GSL. The winners of these tournaments (Morrow, HuK and Cool..) are considered amongst the best playing today.. and for good reason, because there is a skill level / curve.. and they are at the top of it. After the next round of tournaments I'd say these players will also still be top, or within touching distance. of course if they all get knocked out in the first rounds.. then maybe we have a problem.. but I can't see it.
BW limits the actions you can take within a game due to the rough nature of the mechanics. A portion of your APM was relegated to just "busy work," so to speak. I was under the impression that all the "easy" features of SC2 (automining, building queuing, no control group size, etc.) were added to free up APM so that you could do more relevant things in the same amount of time.
Just because you have an automatic rather than a manual transmission doesn't make you a worse driver. It just lets you focus more on the road.
I understand all of that. But it still seems like more emphasis is placed on struggling with poor control mechanisms than on strategic and tactical decisions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying BW doesn't require good micro and good strategy. I just find from watching BW matches that there's just less actual combat and less active map control and more passive map control interspersed with harass.
And I don't think there are any hard counters in SC2, apart from the obvious "ground-to-ground will lose to air-to-ground". Hellions can fight Roaches, just not while a-moving. Mutas can roflstomp turrets and Thors if they magic box. Ghosts shut down HTs, unless they get one shot via feedback.
I think it's unfair to say SC2 macro skill caps have been reached already. But yeah, they're lower than BW. But to pretend the game is shallow and dumbed down is ridiculous. Look at Cool's play at GSL. Spreading a creep highway along with his army, transfusing mutas mid-combat with queens half a map away from the base. That's fucking amazing to watch, and I'm sure it's even more amazing to practica, plan and pull off in a tournament.
It's funny that people pull out the "but he didn't win any tournaments!!11" card, considering that it's pretty obvious NTT wasn't taking this game very seriously. And now that he got bored, he just wanted to troll the n00bs of the scene (and some other people too). I'm certain that he meant what he said though, that BW is a much better game than SC2.
On October 06 2010 16:18 Piski wrote: I don't understand people rage quitting saying the game is too easy but not actually accomplishing anything. I remember NTT from bw days and I was even excited that he was playing SC2. That said I can't remember him doing anything worth mentioning in SC2, but I could be wrong.
Is the game easier than bw? Well hell yes, but not easy enough that just anyone could go to a tournament and win it.
game is easy =/= easy to win
See that's the mentality I don't get. Some BW players honestly seem to treat this less like a chess match with explosions and more like a Rubik's Cube solving contest. Yeah, it's pretty impressive if someone has good macro but I really find a strategy game is far more interesting when you're seeing TLO force a tank retreat with a nuke that gets cancelled as his own tanks siege up.
Cool, you can manually send workers to minerals on four bases and shuffle through 9 factories and 3 starports. Logistics is not exactly the most thrilling part of war.
Saying that SC2 is a bad game because the setup to having your armies is more streamlined is like saying chess is a bad game because any five year old could physically move a rook forward three spaces.
You miss the point of macro. Macro is what enables epic games. Watch more BW matches; endless streams of units, constant battle, every single unit needs to be microed flawlessly. What is considered "good micro" today is good control of a couple of units. To an extent "good macro" is good control of all your units, and seeing the overarching developments while controlling the components required to push through and win. That is strategy.
On October 06 2010 20:30 Squeegy wrote: It's funny that people pull out the "but he didn't win any tournaments!!11" card, considering that it's pretty obvious NTT wasn't taking this game very seriously. And now that he got bored, he just wanted to troll the n00bs of the scene (and some other people too). I'm certain that he meant what he said though, that BW is a much better game than SC2.
I think everyone is sure he meant it.
I think part of the discussion is about whether the reasons he gave the public (and himself) are just rationalizations of a general inability to adapt or if the game is actually quantifiably worse.
It's perfectly fine to prefer BW to SC2. It's a valid, subjective position. But to call SC2 a pile of garbage directed at Farmville players is kind of a rabid position.
Generally, people who rage quit aren't exactly fonts of wisdom.
On October 06 2010 20:33 Dystisis wrote: You miss the point of macro. Macro is what enables epic games. Watch more BW matches; endless streams of units, constant battle, every single unit needs to be microed flawlessly. What is considered "good micro" today is good control of a couple of units. To an extent "good macro" is good control of all your units, and seeing the overarching developments while controlling the components required to push through and win. That is strategy.
Sorry, but that just sounds like hyperbole. Especially since it directly contradicts what others are saying. No one manages everything flawlessly.
It also really doesn't match what I see in the VODs, even if they players are of Jaedong caliber. There's no constant battle, just some mutas and hellions dicking around the map poking at things until there's a big battle in the middle.
Regardless, what you're describing isn't strategy. It's execution. Again, I'm not saying BW is just about muscle memory and mechanics. I'm just saying the emphasis has shifted away from execution and more towards strategy.
First of all the game is still evolving, just like Starcraft 1 took awhile to evolve. It is clearly evident that the game is constantly changing even with no significant balance patches. While he complains that Starcraft 2 is the easiest game ever I didn't see him win any tournaments but according to his comment he shouldn't he have been the best SC2 player ever?
Starcraft 2 will keep evolving, who knows how high the skill cap will go, it might not reach Brood War's level but will that only be because the game has modern mechanics? like the ability to hotkey your buildings into one hotkey? being able to select more than 12 units at a time? Workers auto mine?
Brood War introduced the Medic, Lurker, Corsair, Dark Templar and devourer. The addition of these units changed the game completely and we don't know what Blizzard is going to add on down the line, the game has tons of room to grow and it's people like NTT who are too narrow minded to realize this.
On October 06 2010 20:30 Squeegy wrote: It's funny that people pull out the "but he didn't win any tournaments!!11" card, considering that it's pretty obvious NTT wasn't taking this game very seriously. And now that he got bored, he just wanted to troll the n00bs of the scene (and some other people too). I'm certain that he meant what he said though, that BW is a much better game than SC2.
I think everyone is sure he meant it.
I think part of the discussion is about whether the reasons he gave the public (and himself) are just rationalizations of a general inability to adapt or if the game is actually quantifiably worse.
It's perfectly fine to prefer BW to SC2. It's a valid, subjective position. But to call SC2 a pile of garbage directed at Farmville players is kind of a rabid position.
Generally, people who rage quit aren't exactly fonts of wisdom.
well if you look at sc2 and bw sc2 IS targeted at farmville players.
you see mr bowders " lol lets make kkeewwwl units and then see what happens" design plan evrywhere.
im not talking about mbs/1 control group/and all the other stuff which obv make the game far easier but also are needed in a rts 2010.
but look at the collosus for example. it "replaced" the reaver. the reaver required huge amounts of micro to do well and you could do AMAZING stuff with it. not even talking about the huge excitement of scarabs chasing a bunch of scvs or whatever. no we have the collosus. a insanely powerful unit thats only downside is that it can be hit by air. its mobily,has a huge range ,rapes evrything on ground and requires pretty much zero control at all. the only thing "cool" about it are the shiny lasers.
when a unit gets so dumbed down that the only cool thing about it are lazers and a monkey could control it then yes, instead of trying to build on what made bw so amazing they are doing stuff for the 13 year old farmville guy that just wants to rightclick and see stuff explode.
also sc2 is currently often a guessing game and buildorder rock paper scissor with often very little skill involved. no one can deny that. also it currently focusses on gimmicky play and has a far far far lower mechanical skillcap which also evryone will agree upon.
what he says is absolutely true. maybe not to that extent and hes really exaggerating hardcore. but his basic points are absolutely true and i can understand it totally. cool really saved the gsl for me since he really played amazing. but so often in gsl i watched the games and thought "well... i could do that ". while in broodwar atleast evry 2nd match made me go "OMG THIS GUY IS SOOOO GOOD I COULDNT DO THAT EVER!". the skillcap is just alot lower,the game is alot more simple and way more random.
ofc i still like sc2 and play it. but compared to bw its a shiney kids toy in its current state and with that dev team and people in charge i doubt that will change.
I agree on your last point as well: Give it time. I think the game is going to change over time as things get tested and discovered.
Like Phasing? Like Mineral Boosting? Like Infestor Burrow Casting?
THIS!!!!!
i believe blizzards attitude to removing these "bugs" rather then leaving them in is what in the long run will kill sc2.
for example instead of removing fazing, why not slightly reduce void rays uncharged damage and keep it in. that way you can see clutch battles that the pros can pull off that if done well enough can pull games around. it wasnt gamebreaking at all. it just allowed for top level players to use to turn battles around.
mineral boosting. it never was an issue, no one ever lost games because their opponent used it and they didnt. honestly no reason to remove it. or at least put it into the low priority basket (along with balancing zerg *wink*
infestor burrow casting as well. its SOO apm intensive that it would be great for top level play to see it being pulled off to turn games around. BUT NO some scrub winge'd along with all their low level friends on the bnet forums and got their way.
every time these nifty little features pops up it gets removed right away. imagine BW without muta stacking, vulture patrol micro, valkryie patrol micro and such. these small little ai "bugs: made the game what it was.
and blizzard is removing them left right and centre, which eventually will kill sc2.
Fazing obviously did way too much damage, something had to change. Mineral boosting, I agree, didn't really serve a purpose to begin with. Burrowed casting was NOT APM intensive. All it took was a simple queue of 2 or 3 clicks. Unburrowing to cast it takes 2 clicks and you CAN'T queue it, that's just as impressive. If you liked that you'll love it when Terrans figure out how to have flying planetary fortresses.
FLYING planetary fortresses??
For a second I thought this was an unknown bug
???!!???? Show plz so I can surprise someone with it.
No, I meant I thought he said it was a bug people didnt know about but he was just making an example That would have been so funny tho.
I love NTT, oh man way over the top hahaha. I'd expect something like this from him back in 2000, but I sure as hell didn't expect his charisma to still be like this.
On October 06 2010 21:04 StarStruck wrote: I love NTT, oh man way over the top hahaha. I'd expect something like this from him back in 2000, but I sure as hell didn't expect his charisma to still be like this.
<3
Charisma is getting people to like you, not the opposite...
i think all the kids who dont know who ntt is are the ones who didnt play broodwar, so they'll never understand where he's coming from. I agree with him to the most part, but posting that kind of stuff just makes people who don't know who he is think he's a joke...
Perhaps you should read what I said again. I'll highlight two things for you because apparently you missed them:
"I love NTT"
"<3"
NTT and I go way back. If you don't know who NTT is then you obviously don't know his character. He was a very good player back in the day who was known for having a ridiculous amount of scvs and expanding as if he was zerg. Loved the mech too. Before replays he was one of the best foreign terrans.
I recall NTT in BroodWar and, respecting his opinion, it does sound strange because he claims how easy everything is now but he cant back it up with any major wins on some big tournaments...tbh i actually cant even recall him playing on any major tournament. So from where did his "easy apm, easy mechanics, easy wins and builds doable by monkeys" came from? from ladder matches maybe?
Im sure im just one of the noobs he states on his posts since i feel like im missing something and he clearly states that he doesnt hope noobs to understand it.
Anyway, best of luck for NTT in his future, i always enjoyed seeing him on BW and unfortunately, besides a couple of ladder matches replays, i never got to see him in SC2.
Well good luck achieving anything in BW as he clearly achieved a lot in SC2
oh wait...
edit: I know my post is harsh, but calling this game nooby is retarded. People need to realize that Sc2 is a hard game and there are people who even struggle to get to the diamond.
On October 06 2010 15:59 Manifesto7 wrote: NTT was a very old school BW player who was from Scandanavia Holland. He was a good player but seemed to gain most of his fame from building scv relentlessly throughout the game. He would sometimes end up with half his supply as workers.
Why would he want to achieve anything in SC2 with the said quote? Use common sense. Apparently you guys think trolling a troll is the way to go. I don't see the logic in that. The guy quit BW over 6 years ago. He absolutely hated replays. He isn't coming back.
lmao
At least NTT is getting what he wants. Some of you are getting your panties in a knot over nothing.
On October 06 2010 21:10 StarStruck wrote: Perhaps you should read what I said again. I'll highlight two things for you because apparently you missed them:
"I love NTT"
"<3"
NTT and I go way back. If you don't know who NTT is then you obviously don't know his character. He was a very good player back in the day who was known for having a ridiculous amount of scvs and expanding as if he was zerg. Loved the mech too. Before replays he was one of the best foreign terrans.
Perhaps you should get a dictionary, look up the word charisma, then read the entire thread again.
This thread made my day, its good to see some people don't really change. NTT used to be just as dramatic / loud back in the beginning of BW, and a Kali elitist. Its nice of him to inform everyone that hes to good and the game is to easy for him.
Fact 1: Game is broken. Fact 2: Game being broken is related to poor game design and architectural choices in programming, which is not fixed in patches. Fact 3: It's really pointless to hope for any change before the expansion.
That would make one rage, 50 EUR is not that a small sum.
Btw, I feel that there's a lot of stuff many people feel the same about. It's not really MBS and automine that ruins this game. Those are quite convinient and great (although I admit I tried to play SC1 yesterday and I was so unused to macro that I failed completely). Unit design, pathfinding, environment (I have to login into a game server EACH TIME I want to watch a replay? Seriously? Easily soluble by an authentication daemon, but wtf why is Blizzard not making it?) - these are thing many people are not happy with. I think we should start compiling a list of "SC2 Wrongs", it could actually work if managed by the right people and presented in a right way.
Yeah some people fall into nostalgia pitfalls (honestly, I know who NTT is but he's exactly a drama queen in this case), but people who oppose them glorify SC2 as if all of it's problems were actually due to the veterans' inability to adapt. No, fuck no, it's not true. And no sane person wants an increase in entry level as well, let the game be playable by casuals, after all, one of a thousand will eventually become a good player. All I want is for it to become a game of mind and body just like SC was. And ffs please understand that the current problem is not with the body, but the mind. There's still plenty of stuff to click on.
On October 06 2010 20:23 accaris wrote: BW limits the actions you can take within a game due to the rough nature of the mechanics. A portion of your APM was relegated to just "busy work," so to speak. I was under the impression that all the "easy" features of SC2 (automining, building queuing, no control group size, etc.) were added to free up APM so that you could do more relevant things in the same amount of time.
Just because you have an automatic rather than a manual transmission doesn't make you a worse driver. It just lets you focus more on the road.
The issue 1 is that There are not enough decisions to make.
You see, the concept of BW was simple: You cannot do everything, so you choose either microing those stalkers a bit better or getting slightly more income from your bases. In SC2, you don't make that choice. You just micro those stalkers, all the while getting same income from your base than your opponent.
The issue 2 is that A lot of decisions do not matter enough.
I mean, sure. Having good micro wins you battles, but it doesn't utterly and painfully decimate your opposition like it did in BW. If you were better at Micro, everyone noticed it. If you were better at Macro, the same. The differences were large, and really mattered.
The Issue 3 is that The decisions that do matter, are the ones you have least information about.
The decisions that really, really matter in sc2 are which tech choice to pick. Hard counter environments basically force that situation, after all. Your roaches do not become efficient against Marauders with any kind of micro. Tech choice is, of course, dependant on your opponent and a choice you oftentimes do blindly. You do not have the required knowledge to make the best call, so you just assume something and go with it. Like you do in poker, except you can't mathematically deduce the most probable outcome, and you aren't playing face to face so you could judge by his face if he's bluffing.
----------
See, starcraft 2 is not chess. In chess you see your opponent, have ample time to do your choices and do a lot of brainwork to know the possible situations eight rounds in advance. In starcraft 2, you have a hidden component, which you want to hide, forcing your opponent to play blind with their hidden component. Starcraft 2 is more like poker. Sure, it has counters. Full house beats a pair, you know? Only difference in SC2 would be that pair actually beats a Royal Flush, creating a nice little circle.
Having automatic transmission doesn't make you a worse driver, but given different skill levels, it is easier to tell which one of the drivers is the better one if they are driving with manual, rather than automatic.
I wonder if he'll come back once we start seeing the game develop more. SC2 is such a young game (retail a little over 2 months?) and has so much potential to develop into much more. Even BW was constantly evolving years and years after its inception. Yeah, he makes a lot of good points, but at the same time those were a lot of complaints former BW players had early on, but once they got used to it, it wasn't that big of a deal. It also freed up people to focus on the development of strategies/build orders/etc. rather than having to worry about developing their mechanics. Once we start having serious streamlined solid builds we'll see the mechanically superior players start taking over.
So this guy most people haven't heard of quits. Looking him up he is not only not one of the notable names now but he in fact was only known back when the pro-gamers were not pro yet.
In short, good for him, happy for him, we always new some people would claim BW was better. When Cool decides he has hit the skill cap, I'll listen (or for that matter Nada or Boxer or whoever once/if they beat Cool). In the meantime a player who is not the top saying he has hit skill cap is just as silly as any random high diamond claiming the same.
1. Blizzard Activision needs large profits from SC2, it must become the major esport worldwide. 2. Tons of money are poured into SC2, making other games' scenes looking amateur. 3. Media bombards kids with SC2, and overall more modern looking games. 4. Kids develop appreciation for what they are being exposed to. 5. They look at SC1 and BW and can't appreciate it like their older brothers. 6. With so much attention and development eventually SC2 actually becomes good. (sc1 was not good at first either)
That would be pointless because I already told where I was coming from and what other people said is irrelevant because I (which is the important thing here) like the guy and know what he was all about several years ago. In other words, I proved you wrong.
Here's something you might be able to understand: IdrA has a lot of fans now, no? Why? Because of his character. There is such is thing as good charisma and bad charisma and that is a matter of opinion. You can gravitate to whichever persona's you like.
Thanks boss for pointing out the fact most forum goers don't read the entire thread. However, you are quite wrong in this case. :/
As someone who just lost a game because a kid 2 bases behind me built 5 void rays and steamrolled 3 hatches and a mass of mutas, I agree that there are too many gimmicks in this game.
On October 06 2010 21:37 IShowUMagic wrote: As someone who just lost a game because a kid 2 bases behind me built 5 void rays and steamrolled 3 hatches and a mass of mutas, I agree that there are too many gimmicks in this game.
"He has very strong macro and a creative style based on his refusal to use Marauders."
Thats one badass guy, and I have to agree that the game isn't as apm requiring as BW and I personally find it quite frustrating seeing players like for example sjow who wins tournaments with his measly 80-90 apm.
On October 06 2010 21:37 IShowUMagic wrote: As someone who just lost a game because a kid 2 bases behind me built 5 void rays and steamrolled 3 hatches and a mass of mutas, I agree that there are too many gimmicks in this game.
Then you are doing something wrong and it ain't the gimmick of voidrays that killed you if he only had 5 voidrays, 1 base, and you had 3 bases and mutas.
On October 06 2010 19:18 Raevin wrote: What a load of rubbish, how dare he diss the players and the game
He loved the game when he, every game would set up a 2x bunkers, expand, then slow down the oppossing player forcing him to waste workers and ressources to break through while he would salavage his bunkers, run his marines back and expand himself
He did this EVERY GODDAMN GAME, then people figured it out and he beat the snot out of him becuase he could not adapt and he had no other strategy, that was all he had, those 2 bunkers at the start.
No wonder he quit, losing 59 of your 68 matches cant be fun
He simply could not play straight up against any of the top players, he couldnt even handle 4-5 Phoenix's from Socke, he could not handle a damn thing
He is the epitome of a gimmick player: find a strat that works and keep doing it, eventually people figure you and your one trick pony ass out and beat you with ease.
Quoting this because people love to ignore the voice of reason.
On October 06 2010 21:37 IShowUMagic wrote: As someone who just lost a game because a kid 2 bases behind me built 5 void rays and steamrolled 3 hatches and a mass of mutas, I agree that there are too many gimmicks in this game.
Let me translate. You're a newbie and thus aren't really good yet. And then there was this game you got steamrolled. Then you searched for something to whine about and found this thread. Congratulations!
Frankly? I've seen this happen already with other games that get a huge revamp like Starcraft did. Not all oldschool pros are broad-minded enough to understand that it is a new game, and that the good strategies and elements of the game are not yet uncovered.
These kinds of arguments seem to be "right", but they actually aren't. They're comparing the two games on the same fundamentals, but doing so actually doesn't make sense.
It's a shame, because oldschool pros deserve a lot of respect and have huge potential to become great (if not the best) players in the new game, but sometimes they throw it all away due to this misconception.
Take a look at what happened with the fighting games Immaterial and Missing Power > Touhou Hisoutensoku. the company releases the first game, and it is awesome; with a competitive scene and all that a good game needs. Then Scarlet Weather Rhapsody comes, which is a great concept of a fighting game/card game hybrid, but unfortunately the game is awful due mostly to bad move design (good concept, badly executed). The IaMP scene waits patiently until the SWR expansion, Touhou Hisoutensoku, is released, and when it comes out it is a huge step in making the game better. Tasogare Frontier (the doujin circle which made these games) promises a huge patch that would even change some character's movesets entirely in order to make the game better.
When HTS patch 1.10 comes out the game is awesome, balanced, fun to play and to watch with amazing "WHOA" moments. The tier list reverses entirely after every single tournament due to new strategies being discovered; the "card game" component of the game enhancing the game depth immensely.
Then most of the old IaMP scene pros suddenly ragequit the new game, because: - they were actually waiting for the new features of HTS such as Flight and Border Escapes to be completely removed in order to make it "IaMP 2". And they're tired of waiting it. - they didn't like the fighting game / card game hybrid concept (but this is the core of the new game, there's no way this would be changed - and it is a great concept). - according to them the game is mechanically easy, and blame it on the lack of bugs and new combo system - but this is due to the game being new, as the game is getting much harder each passing day - gimmicky play is still strong, as counters to them had not yet been discovered (such as Suika keep-away and massive card drawing into Missing Purple Power under some favorable weather, like typhoon for example. Try this against any character today and you'll be roflstomped) - they didn't like the new HTS community (they were right about this, but these communities get better as the game becomes harder to learn and people grow up)
So far I've noticed a few symptoms in SC:BW > SC2 that are similar to the IaMP > HTS transition. I just hope that since SC has more players, more pros, and more money involved in it, that people are more level-headed and patient with it. beacuse I'd be seriously disappointed if the same happened with another good game with great potential such as SC2.
Even though he's a bit harsh, the core argument isn't really wrong.. the game is simplified and its not about having good mechanics anymore, its more about build orders, building the right units and scouting.
That is the skill differential at the high level, nobody will complement a guy on his amazing macro "wow look at him hotkey his 7 raxxes and pump out units without looking at his base".
Its more like "Wow look at him hiding that stargate and making 6 void rays to kill his opponent, beautiful move!".
Then again this is what we have and this is what we gotta accept. Starcraft 2 is made for the masses and simplifying it was a step Blizzard had to take to make it more popular. There's no way around it.
On October 06 2010 21:37 IShowUMagic wrote: As someone who just lost a game because a kid 2 bases behind me built 5 void rays and steamrolled 3 hatches and a mass of mutas, I agree that there are too many gimmicks in this game.
Then you are doing something wrong and it ain't the gimmick of voidrays that killed you if he only had 5 voidrays, 1 base, and you had 3 bases and mutas.
On October 06 2010 19:18 Raevin wrote: What a load of rubbish, how dare he diss the players and the game
He loved the game when he, every game would set up a 2x bunkers, expand, then slow down the oppossing player forcing him to waste workers and ressources to break through while he would salavage his bunkers, run his marines back and expand himself
He did this EVERY GODDAMN GAME, then people figured it out and he beat the snot out of him becuase he could not adapt and he had no other strategy, that was all he had, those 2 bunkers at the start.
No wonder he quit, losing 59 of your 68 matches cant be fun
He simply could not play straight up against any of the top players, he couldnt even handle 4-5 Phoenix's from Socke, he could not handle a damn thing
He is the epitome of a gimmick player: find a strat that works and keep doing it, eventually people figure you and your one trick pony ass out and beat you with ease.
Quoting this because people love to ignore the voice of reason.
On October 06 2010 20:23 accaris wrote: BW limits the actions you can take within a game due to the rough nature of the mechanics. A portion of your APM was relegated to just "busy work," so to speak. I was under the impression that all the "easy" features of SC2 (automining, building queuing, no control group size, etc.) were added to free up APM so that you could do more relevant things in the same amount of time.
Just because you have an automatic rather than a manual transmission doesn't make you a worse driver. It just lets you focus more on the road.
--Lots of words--
----------
See, starcraft 2 is not chess. In chess you see your opponent, have ample time to do your choices and do a lot of brainwork to know the possible situations eight rounds in advance. In starcraft 2, you have a hidden component, which you want to hide, forcing your opponent to play blind with their hidden component. Starcraft 2 is more like poker. Sure, it has counters. Full house beats a pair, you know? Only difference in SC2 would be that pair actually beats a Royal Flush, creating a nice little circle.
Having automatic transmission doesn't make you a worse driver, but given different skill levels, it is easier to tell which one of the drivers is the better one if they are driving with manual, rather than automatic.
On a completely side note, I just imagined this and want it forever gone from my head.
Oh, shut up with the imbalances and lack of gameplay or what not. I still have not seen solid evidences of all these rambling other than opinions. It's getting on my nerve.
but look at the collosus for example. it "replaced" the reaver. the reaver required huge amounts of micro to do well and you could do AMAZING stuff with it. not even talking about the huge excitement of scarabs chasing a bunch of scvs or whatever. no we have the collosus. a insanely powerful unit thats only downside is that it can be hit by air. its mobily,has a huge range ,rapes evrything on ground and requires pretty much zero control at all. the only thing "cool" about it are the shiny lasers.
when a unit gets so dumbed down that the only cool thing about it are lazers and a monkey could control it then yes, instead of trying to build on what made bw so amazing they are doing stuff for the 13 year old farmville guy that just wants to rightclick and see stuff explode.
That is so wrong I don't know why you would even say it. You seriously expect a colossus that is right clicked towards the enemy by a monkey or 13 yr old farmville player to accomplish anything?
You don't consider it a downside that it's fragile, because of its size extremely easy to targetfire, and needs a huge escort and/or a bunch of forcefields because otherwise most ground units, melee or ranged, will take it down immediately?
What was exciting about reavers was what a good player could accomplish with them although they were dumb and slow. Do you want blizz to intentionally make units that are dumb and slow? High level reaver play also made for exciting moments because of the luck factor. A scarab could kill 12 SCVs or none at all, when it randomly decided to bug out, and in many situations there's only time for one or two shots. You want a potentially game-deciding luck factor like that in SC2? How can you complain about a low skill cap and then advocate a unit the performance of which is luck based to a larger extent than that of any other unit in the game?
The colossus, on the other hand, is only "insanely powerful" when the enemy units are arranged in a line that is hit by the side-to-side-sweep of its lasers, which is predictable and will happen when these units are a-moved towards the colossus. A line along the laser sweep = bad, a line approximating a right angle to the laser sweep = good; the colossus will only hit one or two units per shot. This is something both players can and must work with, the outcome depends very much on positioning and micro. An a-moved colossus won't accomplish any more than an a-moved reaver. Both will in most situations get off one shot, maybe two, and die.
To me it really sounds like you make your judgment without even trying to make something work first. I'm watching quite a lot of games (including top level games) and find it clear that colossus aren't anywhere near being used to their full potential. Start complaining about a low skill cap when tournament players stop dying to one control group syndrome left and right.
I share his feelings. If my older brother wasn't playing the game (he was battle.net nubbie back on sc1) then I would give the account to TL for whatever purposes they need it for.
Not tryin to flame, just sayin my personal opinion on the game is very.. simliar to his...
I like BW more than SC2. But i dont expect a game that has evolved/been figured out for 10 years, to meet the standards of a game that has been out for 2 months. Give SC2 some more time, lets see what Nada/July will come up with in GSL2 etc.
NTT was one of the best players around a decade ago but the thing is the closest modern game to starcraft is starcraft 2.
There will never be another rts in history that doesn't have MBS , mass-select or other stuff to make the game easier.As witnessed in the reviews most of the reviewers seem to think SC2 is already 'dated' since it still uses the basic mine minerals build base kill enemy as seen in Dune 2.Most other modern RTS games try to break new ground with different play mechanics , no game will ever be as close to BW as SC2 will be.
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/295703/1/NTT/matches#filter=solo His match history makes pretty clear what annoys him. Everyone has been angry in his life before (...) and I assume you know, that anger does not correlate with logic very much. In fact, people tend to blame everything but themselves for things that do not work as anticipated.
Someone claimed this is NTT's smurf account. Can anyone confirm/deny?
On October 06 2010 22:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: NTT was one of the best players around a decade ago but the thing is the closest modern game to starcraft is starcraft 2.
There will never be another rts in history that doesn't have MBS , mass-select or other stuff to make the game easier.As witnessed in the reviews most of the reviewers seem to think SC2 is already 'dated' since it still uses the basic mine minerals build base kill enemy as seen in Dune 2.Most other modern RTS games try to break new ground with different play mechanics , no game will ever be as close to BW as SC2 will be.
And that is why there hasn't been a good "chess 2" ever released.
On October 06 2010 22:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: NTT was one of the best players around a decade ago but the thing is the closest modern game to starcraft is starcraft 2.
There will never be another rts in history that doesn't have MBS , mass-select or other stuff to make the game easier.As witnessed in the reviews most of the reviewers seem to think SC2 is already 'dated' since it still uses the basic mine minerals build base kill enemy as seen in Dune 2.Most other modern RTS games try to break new ground with different play mechanics , no game will ever be as close to BW as SC2 will be.
There's a lot of truth in that with the direction the gaming industry is going. I'm sure there will be some developer that comes along and tries to modernize Brood War, but as it stands right now. Developers aren't trying to cater to the hardcore RTS players because everyone else will get too frustrated and think its a step in the wrong direction when there can be some positives to take out of it. Only thing is, how do you market it to the general audience?
You got to make some mistakes before you can have progression. We'll see what comes out of this.
A little bit sad to see so many people who don't know who NTT is, but it's understandable I guess - he is indeed very old school.
I started playing SC in 1999/2000, he was one of the players I really looked up to back then. He was a dick, but also quite a funny guy, and he backed up his talk by being very, very good. He kind of disappeared for a long time so I was really happy to see him back in SC2, a shame that he's quitting so soon.
Meh, I know I'm going to get a lot of hate, but he's just some washed up really old bw player who's past his prime. Mechanical skill =/= Intellectual Skill
On October 06 2010 21:50 Senx wrote: Even though he's a bit harsh, the core argument isn't really wrong.. the game is simplified and its not about having good mechanics anymore, its more about build orders, building the right units and scouting.
You mean the game revolves around real time strategy ? How dare they !
So it isn't as much of a "who can click faster" contest and more of a strategy game (build orders, scouting, building the right units and right tech paths are all part of strategy).
And given what Raevin is saying, it sounds like he was setting the game up to be gimmicky from the start.
I think the players with that kind of opinion need to learn some solid all purpose expand builds. Never 1 base, play Zerg if you need to. The GSL just proved how far we are from the skill cap (and I'm sure GSL 2 will show that the skill in GSL 1 was very very far from the cap).
ROFL That's like 25 games in a day on hell of a loss streak then going "this game sux and your all nubs kbye goin BW to smurf on iccup"
He was giving away free wins, he explains it in one of his posts. The huge string of losses are all 10 second games if you check his match history in-game.
I can't honestly say I care all about this. NTT was once a pretty good BW pro; that's nice, and thanks to him for fighting the good fight back in the day. Now, he's quitting SC2; that's nice, too. No one should be chastised for playing or not playing a videogame. If he doesn't like it, then he shouldn't play it. There are plenty of other interesting players who are.
As for his stated reasons for quitting...well, I think he doesn't know the kark he's talking about, but as he says, I'm a "noob," so there's no reason he'd listen to me anyway.
That is the skill differential at the high level, nobody will complement a guy on his amazing macro "wow look at him hotkey his 7 raxxes and pump out units without looking at his base".
Its more like "Wow look at him hiding that stargate and making 6 void rays to kill his opponent, beautiful move!".
Then again this is what we have and this is what we gotta accept. Starcraft 2 is made for the masses and simplifying it was a step Blizzard had to take to make it more popular. There's no way around it.
Imo coming up with smart strategies to beat your opponent is more impressive and entertaining then being able to ram a bunch of keys really fast. By making all the basic stuff require less APM there is more room now to focus on the gameplan and strategy.
I'm both sad and shocked to see so many people here not knowin who NTT is. Anyway since he was the king of BM I guess people kinda missunderstand his writing as just some nerdrage. I prefer BW over SC2 but since I have noone to play BW with I play SC2 and it is kinda fun in a way, and I assume it gets more fund when I manage to win vs people with half my apm. I'll get there some day.
Imo coming up with smart strategies to beat your opponent is more impressive and entertaining then being able to ram a bunch of keys really fast. By making all the basic stuff require less APM there is more room now to focus on the gameplan and strategy.
how is it possible for an rts game to have more gameplan and strategy than brood war theres a reason it's still got a proscene 12 years after release
MorroW saying that playing terran is boring and easypizi. Thats why he decided to try zerg, to have fun actually. Sounds true.
Edit: For instance, let me give an example of myself. I was playing zerg for a long time, and I had a practice parter in ZvZ. We played like 10 games, it was very tense and we were pretty even 5 to 5 I think. Then I tried Terran vs him. All I need to do, hellion harass then transition to mass thor+scv+marine timing push. He can't kill it eventhough he knows its coming. The infestor+neural parasite is kinda late vs this push. I am not talking about balance. Its not fun playing like this for him and for me. Similar to NTT's point.
I feel like he's right about the game, but this all coming from him who plays risky builds and hides expansions to capitalize on mistakes only bad players would make just makes his point less valid.
Imo coming up with smart strategies to beat your opponent is more impressive and entertaining then being able to ram a bunch of keys really fast. By making all the basic stuff require less APM there is more room now to focus on the gameplan and strategy.
how is it possible for an rts game to have more gameplan and strategy than brood war theres a reason it's still got a proscene 12 years after release
I'm reading so much "Oh I'm being beaten by people with half my APM, SC2 sucks" stuff here. That just means you're being outsmarted and outplayed, it's not a fault of the game.
ROFL That's like 25 games in a day on hell of a loss streak then going "this game sux and your all nubs kbye goin BW to smurf on iccup"
He was giving away free wins, he explains it in one of his posts. The huge string of losses are all 10 second games if you check his match history in-game.
He was not. I just checked the match history in-game. He gave some freewins to Luzifron after losing a game to him and apparently got constantly matched against him. It's just blind rage from NTT's end.
im suprised how few people know who NTT is, i Don't know NTT personally but i guess this just goes to show that im turning in to an old man lol. well That sucks to hear that NTT is upset with the game how ever i just think it is a rage quit. And Don't worry NTT i Remember playing old school SC and BW back in ladder Challenges and Broodwar ladder and reading about the great NTT.
ROFL That's like 25 games in a day on hell of a loss streak then going "this game sux and your all nubs kbye goin BW to smurf on iccup"
He was giving away free wins, he explains it in one of his posts. The huge string of losses are all 10 second games if you check his match history in-game.
He was not. I just checked the match history in-game. He gave some freewins to Luzifron after losing a game to him and apparently got constantly matched against him. It's just blind rage from NTT's end.
This indeed sounds like just another rage. We've all been there.
On October 06 2010 17:21 Snippa- wrote: Being an oldschool bw player... having watched MANY pro's replays, I did not recognize the name NTT, however after just doing a search through my old replays, it appears I do have 2 of his. However, though I may have heard of him (and obviously forgot)... I think I would take these posts alot more seriously if they came from someone like Grrrr, Boxer, Tsunami, Maynard, ElKy, Bluewolf, FroZ!, or Dreame.
But even then, I personally love Starcraft 2, and would likely ignore what they said. This is not Starcraft/Broodwar. Don't expect it to be.
If anyone doesn't like the game, they can feel free to quit. Just don't go calling a game trash that thousands upon thousands of people waited many years for and actually find it quite enjoyable. Even with the flaws in the game, it is still extremely competitive and there is a hell of alot of room for creative play as there was in Broodwar.
Ehh, NTT was way more famous than Dreame, probably more famous than Tsunami and bluewolf as well.
Anyhow, he seems kinda bitter which is too bad.
way way more than dreame. Tsunami had a cult following because he was one of the first "good" players to have a strategy guide site so I dont really know about him and NTT comparison wise.
I dont think bluewolf was ever "famous" Wizard ended up being a lot better.
Its funny that all nobody saying "the game is too easy" has ever, you know, won anything of note in SC2.
If its so fucking easy, why aren't they romping the competition? I mean, if the skill cap is that easy to hit, they should be just as good as the best players in the world, right?
But they aren't. Despite their whining, they actually aren't close to being as good as the very best players. For all they call the game "easy"...they're actually not that amazing at it.
Its very, very telling that 90% of the people posting have never heard of NTT. He hasn't done anything notable in this game.
This is like some 3rd string scrub Wide Receiver quitting the NFL and claiming that, "the pass interference rules make this game too easy. it used to be you had to really fight corners, now they can barely touch you." Well, if its so easy, why aren't they making pro bowls?
On October 06 2010 15:52 ZaaaaaM wrote: From Brood War to this is like going from F1 to a go-kart. ^^ Some parts are true, some are not. I guess its mostly ragequitting as hes been cheesed the last 15 games. But hey, I dont understand his issues with the game because im a noob, cest la vie.
It's not really like going from F1 to go-kart though is it.
The games control scheme has been modernized and with that, comes things that I bet Blizzard would of put in Brood War if the AI could handle it.
That is the skill differential at the high level, nobody will complement a guy on his amazing macro "wow look at him hotkey his 7 raxxes and pump out units without looking at his base".
Its more like "Wow look at him hiding that stargate and making 6 void rays to kill his opponent, beautiful move!".
Then again this is what we have and this is what we gotta accept. Starcraft 2 is made for the masses and simplifying it was a step Blizzard had to take to make it more popular. There's no way around it.
Imo coming up with smart strategies to beat your opponent is more impressive and entertaining then being able to ram a bunch of keys really fast. By making all the basic stuff require less APM there is more room now to focus on the gameplan and strategy.
Its not impressive when a Plat level player can pull of the same strategy as Nony or Idra. So i have to disagree with that statement. It doesn't excite me AT ALL. The skill ceiling is too low beacuse of lesser mechanical demand.
What impressed me about Broodwar players was their ability to have good macro and good micro at the same time, KNOWING how difficult it was to do it without automining/mbs/no infinite selection etc made it impressive. Now add to that strategic and funky play with those mechanics: EPICLY amazing...reaver drops, storm drops, dropship play, dts, vulture play etc.
Sure, lessening the mechanical demand will promote more strategic play, but yet again I come back to my original point: It lowers the skill ceiling.. since mechanical skill was a HUGE differential in Broodwar and is barely existant in SC2, it will make strategic play easier to pull off and it wont be impressive at all, knowing that alot of people can do it.
Basicly any diamond player that plays 3 hours a day will be able to beat Idra that is fully devoted to SC2, is on EG and plays 8 hours a day in a bo3 simply beacuse the lower skill-ceiling makes the games much closer beacuse mechanics is a very small differential in skill.
Does that excite you maybe? That underdogs can win? I can understand that, but what I don't like is seeing players who clearly dont have the same commitment win over players beacuse they either made the right unit, proxied something or simply went all-in to steal a game or series. You see, if the game was mechanicly demanding like Broodwar these type of strats would have been harder to pull off, but as it is now they're not, which makes lesser players win alot more games.
Thats the thing.. if knowing that its easy to pull off then its not impressive to watch, not for me.
On October 06 2010 22:44 awesomoecalypse wrote: Its funny that all nobody saying "the game is too easy" has ever, you know, won anything of note in SC2.
If its so fucking easy, why aren't they romping the competition? I mean, if the skill cap is that easy to hit, they should be just as good as the best players in the world, right?
But they aren't. Despite their whining, they actually aren't close to being as good as the very best players. For all they call the game "easy"...they're actually not that amazing at it.
Its very, very telling that 90% of the people posting have never heard of NTT. He hasn't done anything notable in this game.
This is like some 3rd string scrub Wide Receiver quitting the NFL and claiming that, "the pass interference rules make this game too easy. it used to be you had to really fight corners, now they can barely touch you." Well, if its so easy, why aren't they making pro bowls?
Morrow said terran is kinda too easy and he won a lot of stuff.
And i think what a lot of people mean by "the game is too easy" is just that it doesnt FEEL like there is much to improve. I mean in bw u see flash and are like. "Yea never could pull this off. No chance in hell i am able to do this" While in sc2 its like "meh cool has barely 120 apm and i play with 220 why the heck does he win $$$$$$ with that".
In starcraft 2 decision making is just soooo important. U cant win games with just ur mechanics that easy anymore.
On October 06 2010 22:44 awesomoecalypse wrote: Its funny that all nobody saying "the game is too easy" has ever, you know, won anything of note in SC2.
MorroW said that terran was too easy. Last time I checked, MorroW was pretty good.
He also admitted that he practices about one hour/day, and is on top. If you played one hour of BW every day, it'd take about 80 years to get decent at it.
On October 06 2010 15:53 decemberTV wrote: Yes, he has. I'll try and convince him otherwise but he's a very stubborn child.
He has a point though, the game is trash.
How is this game trash?
From his perspective It's too easy for your average WoW/CoD nub gamer to pick up with their 50 apm and do one easy (And actually beat people a bit better than them, maybe he's also trying to stab a bit at terran... but he was a T player too.)
To be honest I think that Morrows statement that he practices about 1-2 hours a day is totally misleading as this just refers to his laddering/customgaming. But he plays tourneys like every day and those take very long and playing a Bo5 against the likes of Naniwa, Socke or Select is also some sort of practise.
Why is this news? Another QQ on the B.net forums. The mods allow this kind of discussion but would ban a TL member if they posted a "I hate the game I'm quitting thread" like this.
When starcraft came out there wherent anywhere near as many players playing it at release as it is with starcraft 2 ? The races, the gameplay everything was basically new (its an rts, but its unique compared to other rts, so is war3 etc so people started off at scratch there too). But in sc2, alot of the basics are already known, the basic build orders where in place really quick, and with the amout of people playing it the game went into hyper speed as soon as the first beta. Ofc its hard to be at the top early (which he probably thought he would be seing as he was really good back in the days) when you have millions of people playing it. The game will evolve so quick. The reason I think alot of the old school people think its a bit bland is because there is already a few standard strong tactics and when you have millions of people playing it the odds of meeting someone who has practiced certain tactics (4gate as an example) is very high.
Players have seen replays, they have seen vods and live casts since beta. Its only natural more and more pick up on tactics from the top tier players, and practice executing them. This game as a medium to the whole community has been implemented from the start. This was not the fact with bw as the patch with replays introduced this aspect. I fail to see his reasoning due to the fact this game is so accessible to everyone. If I want a replay of Cool I can go get one. If I want one of TLO, IdrA etc I can go get one. I can watch the replays, practice certain builds and get decent at executing it.
As stated earlier the first replay on TL was from NTT. He sure had to be good to be the first replay, and he was. BW just evolved so much later and the people who managed to find stuff in the game could keep it somewhat to themselfs, and other players couldn't directly copy him or other awesome players.
What I feel is the difference between the top players in sc2 and the rest is how solid their play is, how they can adapt, and how good their game sens is. The fact they can see this and execute that is what its all about atm. Throw in some high apm play and you have the top tier.
The comments of the Starcraft II fan-boys in this thread are kind of depressing.
People really need to get off their intuitive/emotional thoughts about the game and start thinking about it analytically. Yes, it brought a huge mass of new players, but once everyone gets very good at this game, I'm afraid it'll stall to a point where only a few factors determine a win.Some units need to get removed (his refusal to use marauders is NOT stupid you (insert insult here) maggots), mechanics less user-friendly, maps need to get wider. MorroW has expressed his doubts about the subject...yes, i totally agree with you NTT.
I have played quite alot with NTT in practice games and he is a good player in sc2. He could probably win a tournament if he really wanted to. I to think there are some flaws with this game but I just plan to stay with it and see how it goes. Still pretty fun to play.
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
Drama queen out.
Stim is a gimmick? That was in BW... Void Rays are a Gimmick? Warp In is a Gimmick?
If that's our standard, then I say:
Reaver/Carrier Proxy attacks are a gimmick. Burrow is a gimmick. Lurker is a gimmick. Moving shot micro is a gimmick. Spider Mines are a gimmick. Arbiter Recall and Stasis is a gimmick. Air unit clumping is a gimmick. Etc.
manual worker splitting in starcraft vanilla was a fcken pain in the ass as well as many other limitations the game had and some people claim they were the real "cool mechanic aspect of SC1"
some ppl keep talking as if most of this issues were intended features of starcraft I when it clearly was a limitation of the game (and also almost all RTS games when SC1 was out...).
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
Drama queen out.
Stim is a gimmick? That was in BW... Void Rays are a Gimmick? Warp In is a Gimmick?
If that's our standard, then I say:
Reaver/Carrier Proxy attacks are a gimmick. Burrow is a gimmick. Lurker is a gimmick. Moving shot micro is a gimmick. Spider Mines are a gimmick. Arbiter Recall and Stasis is a gimmick. Air unit clumping is a gimmick. Etc.
But all these things you just listed require much higher levels of execution than anything in SC2, in a game that overall requires significantly higher multitasking.
I mean all you've accomplished here is listing a number of the awesome things in BW that were more difficult to pull of both independently and in the context of their respective games.
You're basically proving NTT's point
On October 06 2010 23:16 Meatloaf wrote: manual worker splitting in starcraft vanilla was a fcken pain in the ass as well as many other limitations the game had and some people claim they were the real "cool mechanic aspect of SC1"
some ppl keep talking as if most of this issues were intended features of starcraft I when it clearly was a limitation of the game (and also almost all RTS games when SC1 was out...).
IMHO Games are meant to be played.
Games are meant to be played therefore I strongly advocate automation ????
I actually think there is a certain elegance to auto mine, mbs etc, I don't mind them. But the truth is in addition to having those we have more shallow combat as well. The most significant thing in SC2 is giving your units as big a positional cone as possible become you a move. Taking out the tedium in a system that already easier than its predecessor just makes it more apparent how much worse it is in this case
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
Drama queen out.
Stim is a gimmick? That was in BW... Void Rays are a Gimmick? Warp In is a Gimmick?
If that's our standard, then I say:
Reaver/Carrier Proxy attacks are a gimmick. Burrow is a gimmick. Lurker is a gimmick. Moving shot micro is a gimmick. Spider Mines are a gimmick. Arbiter Recall and Stasis is a gimmick. Air unit clumping is a gimmick. Etc.
half of what you said is a gimmick is wrong. why? because notice how he says nothing involving zerg is a gimmick. you listed half things that mostly zergs do.
i wouldnt call SC2 trash, i think its pretty awsome, but i gotta agree on SOME point that NTT is pointing out.
calling NTT an newb? fuck you, and i saw someone saying that NTT havent done anything notable in SC? well he got 3rd place in WCG in 2000-2001. anyway, most people wont ever get the chance to compete in WCG, and only few manage to grab a medal.
game being too easy mean, I have more skills and more apm than my opponent but game doesn't scale the APM so much 150 is enought, and if u are 300+ you feel that game is too easy for lower skill apm players being equaly good as someone with alot higher APM, in BW difference between 150 APM is 300 APM is huge, it's like doing nothing vs someone with 150 APM while in SC2 150vs300 is like 150 vs 150
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
Drama queen out.
Stim is a gimmick? That was in BW... Void Rays are a Gimmick? Warp In is a Gimmick?
If that's our standard, then I say:
Reaver/Carrier Proxy attacks are a gimmick. Burrow is a gimmick. Lurker is a gimmick. Moving shot micro is a gimmick. Spider Mines are a gimmick. Arbiter Recall and Stasis is a gimmick. Air unit clumping is a gimmick. Etc.
But all these things you just listed require much higher levels of execution than anything in SC2, in a game that overall requires significantly higher multitasking.
I mean all you've accomplished here is listing a number of the awesome things in BW that were more difficult to pull of both independently and in the context of their respective games.
You're basically proving NTT's point
I can do all of those things in sc1 and i'm an awful awful sc1 player, why am i a bad sc1 player? because i spend all of my time watching sc1 instead of playing it, and i have about 8 hours of actual game time. while i have countless hours watching it.
You can add a foot pedal to sc1, and in order to click anything you have to push the foot pedal and click at exactly the same moment. does it add difficulty? yes. does it add needless tasks? yes. does it raise a skill cap? for people who've never played, yes, for anyone playing the game? no. Muscle memory is the flaw with the "the mechanics add difficulty" argument. once you practice enough you just automatically do stuff. kind of like how sc2 will automatically do stuff for you now. pretty much they removed the 100+ hours of practice you needed for muscle memory alone and thats it. yeah its a skill cap if you are starting a game. but at the top level no pro is struggling because they can't do the actions. they all have the muscle memory.
I really like his points, because I said some of this earlier too. It's really dumb that BOs are so ridiculously strong and at the same time so easy to use (2port cloaked banshee, void ray opening on desert PvT and so on...). Making a game easier doesnt mean that he/me/someone else need to own everyone to prove this, it just means that it is way harder to be a good/dominant player since it is way harder to make something better than your opponent.
I'm curious how much of his opinion is based on the maps alone. We all know BW moved away from Blizzard maps and used exclusively customs now.
I'm interested in seeing where SC2 would be when that happens. For example, based on Blizzard maps, I think Terran is pretty ridiculous at times.
When I look at ICCup maps though, I think Protoss is pretty crazy. Whether it's just players don't know how to play the custom maps or not is something to consider.
Alright, I'll enjoy my gimmicks while he enjoys his _____________? I bet if SC2 had bw graphics and was out for 13 years and we switched to BW with SC2 graphics he'd be bitching about the loss of MBS, warp in, etc. so you know what? enjoy getting the attention NTT, I'ma keep playing.
Stim is a gimmick? That was in BW... Void Rays are a Gimmick? Warp In is a Gimmick?
If that's our standard, then I say:
Reaver/Carrier Proxy attacks are a gimmick. Burrow is a gimmick. Lurker is a gimmick. Moving shot micro is a gimmick. Spider Mines are a gimmick. Arbiter Recall and Stasis is a gimmick. Air unit clumping is a gimmick. Etc.
But all these things you just listed require much higher levels of execution than anything in SC2, in a game that overall requires significantly higher multitasking.
I mean all you've accomplished here is listing a number of the awesome things in BW that were more difficult to pull of both independently and in the context of their respective games.
You're basically proving NTT's point
So you're telling me that stuff like Void Ray charge micro or blinking hurt Stalkers is significantly less difficult than BW micro stuff? I don't buy that. If everything was so easy, then why has only FruitDealer been capable of all these SC2 zerg tasks that 'require significantly lower multitasking'? Shouldn't the lower skill ceiling mean that tons of Zergs would be doing all that stuff? Oh wait, Day9 can't even larvae inject and spread creep consistently yet and he's a former top tier BW player. Or if we're talking Terran, shouldn't the lower skill ceiling have helped Rainbow beat Fruit in spite of playing significantly worse?
Talk about elitist, Jesus. Calling everyone who disagrees with him a newb? Am I supposed to respect him after that random rant? People need to get over this Sc1 vs Sc2 debate. Its pointless. They are different games, get over it.
You can talk all day about how auto-mine and MBS are crutches to poor play but the fact is if blizzard had thought of it in Sc1 it would be in that game was well. I played Sc1 the day it came out (that's right kiddies, I am 29) and it was a great game back then. I remember the day Broodwar came out, another great game. That does not take anything away from Sc2. Broodwar was an awesome game, and the biggest esports game ever. Will Sc2 measure up to that? It remains to be seen.
That aside, whining about MBS and skill ceiling is pathetic. What you think are amazing mechanics are actually artificial limitations put on play. Personally I don't want to play a game that fights against me, I want to play a game that works with me. All I hear from conservatives (that's what you guys are, face it) is that Sc2 has no micro, only gimmicks, a la blink, muling, etc. Well guess what, Broodwar has no mechanics, all it has are gimmicks, a la no auto-mining or MBS. Its the same issue, both have abilities (or lack of ability) that force you to do more work to get your units to work effectively. That's fine because they are Different games. Stop crying because Broodwar is hemorrhaging players. Its going to happen whether you want it to or not.
I played CS competitively for many many years. The best CS version by far was 1.3. There was no delay in jumping, recoil was much harder to control. That's when the skill was the highest. You know how many leagues use 1.3 now? You know how few people even remember it? Progress marches on, you can ignore it and continue with what you love, or you can get on board. If you try to stop it by standing in front and screaming about how much better the past was, you are just going to get run over.
On October 06 2010 23:31 iRRelevance wrote: What's this kali everyone speaks about ?
I've always liked NTT's bw style, but now he just fails to adapt.
kali was a platform to play games that didnt support tcp/ip over the internet
like warcraft 2
so when starcraft came out some war2 players that wanted to be extra cool and old school stayed on kali and kept playing starcraft there and built on their superiority complex compared to regular b.net players
it was fun playing there for a while (before it became afk city), but kali always seemed to spawn arrogant elitist pricks like NTT who thought they are so much better than anyone else just cuz they play on kali
so fun rememberin those days, i guess if basically everyone playing the game is around 18 elitism evolves even more easily
On October 06 2010 23:16 Meatloaf wrote: manual worker splitting in starcraft vanilla was a fcken pain in the ass as well as many other limitations the game had and some people claim they were the real "cool mechanic aspect of SC1"
some ppl keep talking as if most of this issues were intended features of starcraft I when it clearly was a limitation of the game (and also almost all RTS games when SC1 was out...).
IMHO Games are meant to be played.
Oh my God, that was painful to read.
Don't you think Blizzard could've patched these "limitations" ANY TIME THEY WANTED? It's INTENDED. The game is harder this way.
On October 06 2010 23:16 Meatloaf wrote: manual worker splitting in starcraft vanilla was a fcken pain in the ass as well as many other limitations the game had and some people claim they were the real "cool mechanic aspect of SC1"
some ppl keep talking as if most of this issues were intended features of starcraft I when it clearly was a limitation of the game (and also almost all RTS games when SC1 was out...).
IMHO Games are meant to be played.
Oh my God, that was painful to read.
Don't you think Blizzard could've patched these "limitations" ANY TIME THEY WANTED? It's INTENDED. The game is harder this way.
yeah but MBS etc in sc2 is also INTENDED. its to shift the skill cap away from being 17 and able to have 300 apm to out-thinking your opponent
you know, the "strategy" in RTS. otherwise it would be a "real time click as fast as you can game"
if you want that, go play some mouse precision browser game and brag to your friends how fast you can click
On October 06 2010 23:49 0neder wrote: The only complaint we can accurately say NTT has is the map one.
Agreed.
So are we supposed to bow in reverence of this guy? Goes drama all over and quits? I'm sad for the people who pop out in his defense, are you doing it just to be different?
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
Drama queen out.
Stim is a gimmick? That was in BW... Void Rays are a Gimmick? Warp In is a Gimmick?
If that's our standard, then I say:
Reaver/Carrier Proxy attacks are a gimmick. Burrow is a gimmick. Lurker is a gimmick. Moving shot micro is a gimmick. Spider Mines are a gimmick. Arbiter Recall and Stasis is a gimmick. Air unit clumping is a gimmick. Etc.
But all these things you just listed require much higher levels of execution than anything in SC2, in a game that overall requires significantly higher multitasking.
I mean all you've accomplished here is listing a number of the awesome things in BW that were more difficult to pull of both independently and in the context of their respective games.
You're basically proving NTT's point
May I ask if you watched sanZenith vs oGsInCa (GSL) ? I see players who have good mechanics constantly lose the VR charge. Seems like players at their caliber dont have the mechanics/APM to execute that in SC2.
Warp-In gimmick? Yeah probably, but it comes the closest to BW without MBS. "Click Building with mouse, hit hotkey" vs "Hit hotkey, click place to warpin with mouse".
I dont want to argue that BW was more mechanical demanding than SC2 - it clearly was. But can we really say that we have reached the skill ceiling already? I mean - SC2 has been out for ~2months. Add another ~4months for Beta. Compare this to years of practice & developing tactics/strategies in BW. Look at 7% mineral boosting. That was discovered not even a month ago (yes I know it was patched) - can we say for sure that we discovered everything in the game yet? What about the upcoming expansions? Maybe they add APM intensive units.
As someone already said - use the freed up APM to do more stuff. Surround enemies per hand - it's more effective than letting the AI do it (though the AI is better than the BW AI). I also havent seen a player do simultaneous drops (maybe Boxer). Everyone else is like "ok I drop on this side of the map, ok everything died. Let's drop on the other side of the map". But nothing at the same time (if I am wrong please tell me the games - I love to watch that style of play). I see the point though that having more free APM the diversity of the playstyles might suffer.
That said, I don't give a shit what he thinks about SC2 and neither should any of you. Ofcourse there's going to be people that don't like the game. Ask yourself whether YOU like the game and base your opinion off that.
Better UI, simpler controls and better unit AI will always tend to close the gap between the average player and the best earlier in a game's history.
Then, in time it usually opens up again when more people start to hit their limit.
I think we'll see much better displays of skill starting in the near future, and I dare predict it'll be in the form of simultaneous battles all over the map both well executed and well defended.
"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."
YAYYYY Hyperbole!!
The community's better without idiots like this. When someone this prominent says something as dumb as that, it's time to just ignore him.
You guys really should learn your BW history. NTT has some some DAMN innovative builds (Deep Six versus Toss was brilliant haha =D ) in BW and was quite a good foreigner back in the day not to mention a great contribution to the site. I can't believe the crap some people are saying about him since most of his post is actually pretty spot on. Sc2 is a bit dry and boring. Every game more or less plays out the same and after a bit, it feels less than playing for practice or fun and more like grinding games for the stats.
I apologize for the writing, it is an early battle report from 1999. At that time there were NO replays, and battle reports were all we had. Some of the jokes you won't get, if you are unfamiliar with that time period, and battlereports.com lore.
Mark4 had been hired by i2e2 to battle report games in their tournament. i2e2 was a short lived company that held SC tournaments (and other games I think). NTT was pissed because he got knocked out of the tourney early, and somehow Mark4 challenged him, and well... you can read the rest in the report.
(again, I apologize for my rather cheesy writing style back then, haha)
"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.
On October 06 2010 23:06 Iest wrote: The comments of the Starcraft II fan-boys in this thread are kind of depressing.
People really need to get off their intuitive/emotional thoughts about the game and start thinking about it analytically. Yes, it brought a huge mass of new players, but once everyone gets very good at this game, I'm afraid it'll stall to a point where only a few factors determine a win.Some units need to get removed (his refusal to use marauders is NOT stupid you (insert insult here) maggots), mechanics less user-friendly, maps need to get wider. MorroW has expressed his doubts about the subject...yes, i totally agree with you NTT.
So people who play SC2 and enjoy playing it are emotional, but the BW fans who refuse to let go of the past aren't...hmm (your personal attacks towards people suggesting the foolishness of the refusal to use a staple unit doesnt help your "stop being emotional" argument either). Also, you have absolutely no evidence that "once everyone gets very good at this game, itll stall to a point where only a few factors determine a win," besides the fact that at very high levels, in both BW and SC2, small mistakes in the beginning can lead to an unrecoverable deficit.
Heres some analytical/logical thinking. whats the rationale for designing a game with the same technological deficiencies (somehow called "mechanics" by SC2 haters) as its 10+ year old predecessor? someone who plays BW 8 hours a day without looking online for these "mechanics" will be at a permanent disadvantage (im guessing most people didnt figure out things like muta stacking by themselves). How is that not a gimmick? It takes away from substantive strategies and focuses attention on actions that could be considered busy work.
I, personally, am still stuck going back to my base and individually building units from buildings instead of always using MBS. If I lose because of that, then its a completely legitimate reason. I spent my attention and APM doing something that someone else spent considerably less attention and APM for. He then used that extra APM and attention to out micro me in a battle. Just because something is more user friendly doesnt mean suddenly the playing field is suddenly even between high APM and low APM players.
As has been stated numerous times by other people in this thread and elsewhere: you can like BW more than SC2, but saying SC2 is a horrible game, full of noobs, skill-less, etc. just shows how much of a hypocrite you are. SC2 is a great game, but your intuitive/emotional attachment to the BW you love so much is causing you to see SC2 as competition, which makes you want to put it down. For some reason, BW fan-boys (to use your snide terminology) seem to have an irrational necessity to insult SC2 and its fans in order to keep themselves feeling well. Pretty sad.
On October 06 2010 15:48 GIGAR wrote: This makes you wonder what will be the future of Starcraft 2 competitive gaming, especially if you consider the big BW players that have just moved (or is planning to move) to SC2.
What do you think? Is this a preview of what is to come, or is NTT just rage-quitting? :/ (obviously, it should be noted that this might just be a troll from NTT, but it's kind of a harsh troll if so)
ummm, no it doesn't. SC2 is going fine, many people are enjoying it. 1 elitest jerk ragequit, that's all. many people are joining up, and i've heard of 1 person leaving (and everyone was like "what? who is that guy?" hahahhah).
if boxer/nada/oov/fruitdealer/tlo/etc............... quit, then make a post about it. don't worry about this scrub.
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
NTT was one of the best foreign BW players and a part of GG##, which at the time, was considered the best clan outside of Korea with members including Elky and Slayer.
He was ridiculously good and always had horrible manner.
On October 07 2010 00:11 MorroW wrote: this guy is a hero in my eyes, he said pretty much exactly what i feel. 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
Do you think it would be better if they changed mule so you had to constantly call them down like you gotta do with spawn larva? Like 25 energy mule with a cooldown, and it mines half of what it does now.
On October 06 2010 23:16 Meatloaf wrote: manual worker splitting in starcraft vanilla was a fcken pain in the ass as well as many other limitations the game had and some people claim they were the real "cool mechanic aspect of SC1"
some ppl keep talking as if most of this issues were intended features of starcraft I when it clearly was a limitation of the game (and also almost all RTS games when SC1 was out...).
IMHO Games are meant to be played.
Oh my God, that was painful to read.
Don't you think Blizzard could've patched these "limitations" ANY TIME THEY WANTED? It's INTENDED. The game is harder this way.
yeah but MBS etc in sc2 is also INTENDED. its to shift the skill cap away from being 17 and able to have 300 apm to out-thinking your opponent
you know, the "strategy" in RTS. otherwise it would be a "real time click as fast as you can game"
if you want that, go play some mouse precision browser game and brag to your friends how fast you can click
Why don't you play a turn based game? Whoever can do the most actions in a real-time game has the advantage...
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 hope people don't start questioning who YOU are... That would make me cry
While the game will get better, I fear that it will not happen until HotS/Legacy of the Void (?) :/
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.
"The skills I refined over the past 10 years do not put me in a 10-year gap in front of people learning the game now!"
I've seen this in every iteration of a game that simplifies somebody. A lot of good players are happy where they were - they were a big fish in a well-established pond. They knew it better than most people, and new players would be so far behind they would have no hope of catching up.
Then move to a new game and suddenly new players have a chance of catching up. Yeah, it sucks to develop all those skills that in the end didn't mean anything, but what are you gonna do.
This was really apparent from Street Fighter 3 to Street Fighter 4, from Smash Bros Melee to Smash Bros Brawl, from CVS2 to.. some other series.
People do hang on - there are still small circles that play SF3 competitively. But it's not healthy - the game is so far 'solved' that there's nothing left to discover and no new tactics being developed - and new players have such a learning gap that they don't want to start playing this game when they could just play the new game and actually have a shot at not being a beginner.
I understand NTT's position, but he's assuming a LOT about how the pro scene is going to end up (and is already wrong, really - 60 apm isn't enough to keep up with macro (unless you're terran), and certainly not enough for decent micro anywhere).
The world is changing and he doesn't want to change with it. That's why we have oldies stations.
SC2 is still young and has a long way to come, but I will miss all the quirks of SC1 like bad unit pathing, and not being able to cue everything up. Being able to control units in a heated battle in SC1 really separates the pros from the fairly skilled.
Though these things will be missed, adding things like auto-repair, auto mining, and other automated things opens up hundreds of APM for pros to spend on things like heavier micro play, or multiple drops.
I also havent seen a player do simultaneous drops (maybe Boxer). Everyone else is like "ok I drop on this side of the map, ok everything died. Let's drop on the other side of the map". But nothing at the same time (if I am wrong please tell me the games - I love to watch that style of play).
Just watch Viking Cup. Just.. Do it.
Happens a lot.
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
Inb4: "Omg wtf who is this scrub agreeing with OP never heard of this guy."
On October 07 2010 00:18 SilverPotato wrote: SC2 is still young and has a long way to come, but I will miss all the quirks of SC1 like bad unit pathing, and not being able to cue everything up. Being able to control units in a heated battle in SC1 really separates the pros from the fairly skilled.
Though these things will be missed, adding things like auto-repair, auto mining, and other automated things opens up hundreds of APM for pros to spend on things like heavier micro play, or multiple drops.
There's nothing for the extra APM though because people were doing those things in BW while doing everything else as well, which made it more impressive and for me at least, fun to play.
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...
On October 07 2010 01:02 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: 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. 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.
And removing MBS would be seen as an huge setback (of the features of the game) by 90% atleast of the community just to please the rest of the (elitist) community. Blizzard will never done such an unpopular and unproductive move.
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.
Are you comparing the NTT quotes in the Op to Ali trash talking?? I am confused.
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."
I'm not sure you have much of an understanding of what is going on here. It should be obvious that the level in SC2 increases very rapidly compared other games in their first few months. That alone should put an end to the whole use free time to get better argument. It's really kills any discussion to say people shouldn't say anything but instead practice more.
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.
Any new game will inspire creativity in the earlier periods. This guaranteed. The main argument is that once creativity is spotted it is doable for other top players to copy this creativity rapidly. Simply following TLO/Jinro and the oGs guys on ladder it is amazing how when someone on the Korean ladder introduces a new strategy that works how he will be playing against it the next day.
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.
Is this a joke? Every single guy in the top of SC2 that has a BW background will tell you BW was a tougher game. There is no need to ridicule them for this at all. Of course people will not comment on how they love how X makes units in SC2 because everybody makes the same amount of units, that is the whole point. If you followed any BW at all you will know how indeed people watching comment on amazing macro constantly.
By now I'm starting to come across as some BW groupie but in fact I love SC2 and think it's an awesome game. It's not going to change and everybody has to accept this. All I am doing here is make sure that all the correct information is provided because so much crap is being spread that it becomes difficult for people to educate themselves properly.
On October 07 2010 01:11 Hawk wrote: Are you comparing the NTT quotes in the Op to Ali trash talking?? I am confused.
On October 07 2010 01:02 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: 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.
In short:
SC2 is to BW what LoL is to DotA: A more casual-friendly, easier-to-manage concept-copy with less skill differentiating mechanics.
I remember the NTT name from back in the day then he dropped off the radar. Like Nazgul said maybe he should try Zerg out and see if it is mechanically challenging enough.
This game could change, but not until the expansion if they do decide to do that. The GSL shows off some interesting trends, but I believe Blizzard helped GOM TV set it up for the sheer fact they will have a monthly tournament with a lot of the current top players to see how the current trend of the game is going and see if they should balance or change anything. They have done some changes in the beta to make the macro a bit harder ie: Chrono boost has to be cast on the building and not the wireframe.
The maps in SC2 seem like rubbish because they aren't huge maps that reward excellent macro play or long drawn out pushes. Blizzard stated they chose the map size so new players wont be overwhelmed, they might have a whole new map lineup for their Pro League when they release it. Blizzard has been known to change stuff recently. I know people hate wow references but with their new expansion they are releasing they just overhauled the game from top to bottom in regards to the mechanics of how it is played.
SC2 will be their e-sports flagship and they will hopefully treat it like it is and have a open mind in some changes they can do.
On October 07 2010 00:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: 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.
I like the honesty of your posts Nazgul.
I'm interested why you devote so much time/energy + solicit sponsors for a game you believe is ultimately shallow.
If you believe the game to have a "ceiling" wouldn't your surmise that everyone will eventually tire of it and thus Team Liquid as well?
This isn't meant as a flame or whatever, I'm genuinely interested since Team Liquid got on the SC2 train early.
I think SC2 is a great amazing game as well. Funnily enough it is possible to be honest about these things and still like SC2 exactly the way it currently is. For me you could say BW is the best game and SC2 is the second best game I have ever played. Overall I'm not negative about SC2 I think it's awesome. Only thing I'm negative about is shortsighted people posting in topics such as this one.
Besides loving BW and SC2 I love esports and top level gaming and it is SC2 that needs to be the game to bring this to a higher level outside of Korea.
One thing's for sure, this guy sure knows how to get a rise out of people, if nothing else. I've seen these issues discussed many times before but this easily looks to be the first thread enticing so much banworthy material, heh.
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.
I'm getting a different vibe than you when reading the complaints, I guess. I just don't think people are being as realistic as you're claiming they are. I mean, in the few minutes after your reply, somebody already compared MBS to an aimbot in an FPS game. =/
On October 07 2010 00:23 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: 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.
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?
I taught this is a strategy game, not a who has better mechanics game. MBS and the rest of AI should be there in BW, its just that no one taught of it before. NTT crying about MBS and stuff is just pissed that ppl who couldnt do that in BW can now win him since they are better at strategy part of the game and have better decision making.
Ofc BW was harder, but that is not a good thing! Thats the reason it is not played anymore. Except for Korea.
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.
On October 07 2010 01:34 rozina wrote: I taught this is a strategy game, not a who has better mechanics game. MBS and the rest of AI should be there in BW, its just that no one taught of it before. NTT crying about MBS and stuff is just pissed that ppl who couldnt do that in BW can now win him since they are better at strategy part of the game and have better decision making.
Ofc BW was harder, but that is not a good thing! Thats the reason it is not played anymore. Except for Korea.
This opinion is just so wrong and I typed a response like 3 times only to delete because there's just no way to respond to this other than a 2-day ban.
Some people are frustrated that the game now revolves more around build orders and executing strategies than overcoming flaws of the game, like its predecessor...
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.
At first I thought this was about TT and was genuinely surprised. Then I realized it was an old-school European and it made more sense. 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.
I agree with NTT, the units clump up together, die quickly, spellcasters are easy to use, etc. 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. He says build order wins are common, and it's so true, so many games in the GSL just came down to the first timing push, and I never thought 'if only he micro'd better he could've held it off', instead it was all forgone conclusions and I really hated watching that shit. SC2 is like rock paper scissors, and while I like it now that it's new my interest in it is rapidly fading. I'll have to see how the likes of Nada and July do in GSL2, perhaps they will show that micro (and macro) can have a larger role, however I really doubt it.
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.
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.
For anyone who is old enough to be a former Kali player NTT's rage quit shouldn't really come as a surprise. Yes he was brilliant in the later days of Kali but he was still a handful to deal with and prolly one of the biggest drama queen I've ever talked to.
When people complain about SC2 being easier than BW, it makes me think of computer programming. In the old days, before higher level programming languages were developed, you had to code in assembly language. What you were doing was just a step above directly manipulating the 1's and 0's in a computer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
On October 07 2010 01:59 LostDevil wrote: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".
You realize people could make it to C+ by just 6-pooling people on Iccup right? I guess that makes BW a bad game too?
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.
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.
Easy micro means you only have to hit 1a and spam your spell hotkeys to perform 99% optimally.
NTT makes some good points, but he's too upset to make them well. The major issue with SC2 is one that exists in any RTS: players can make stupid decisions and still win.
It's a question of human psychology. Most players don't go into a game saying, "I'm going to start with a flexible build, scout, and adapt my play." Instead, they blindly execute a build order and hope for the best. We've all lost games from play that made no logical sense whatsoever, situations in which your opponent was not reacting properly to anything he scouted and just blindly making units. The difference was that, in Brood War, superior mechanics could save you from that loss; you could claw your way back into the game. In SC2, though, you just lose; the game mechanics are so simple that the first setback puts you on a slippery slope from which you can never recover.
SC2 is fine. It's acceptable. It's a good RTS. I got my $60 worth. But I won't be playing it in 2011.
requesting a replay of NTT able to micro multiple battles in different areas of the map while expanding and macroing without missing a beat. since everything is such low APM he should be able to handle it no problem right? only one is necessary. i noticed he's in the uber-league for EU with dimaga, naniwa etc. so someone should have a replay. i assume he plays well if he's in that league.
the only area i agree that ruins the game is the maps, which goes a long way to fixing 80-90% of the problems that truly hold SC2 back, such as build order losses. i recognize that new/better maps will come out and there will be more breathing room for style, so i'm not bothered. i didn't need all the bitching about not imbalanced things (blink? really???) to figure that out though, and i also realized that within a few days.
honestly, rereading his post, he sounds exactly like the babies who post in SC2 strat that such and such is OP, then when they post a replay, they played like shit. that's why i want to see what it looks like when he plays and not when he posts. i'll give him the benefit of the doubt and watch replays of his with an open mind because i think 1 replay is all it will take to settle this thread.
Easy micro means you only have to hit 1a and spam your spell hotkeys to perform 99% optimally.
Maybe 1a is enough for most people to get by with now but I'm sure at higher levels, controlling 3-4 groups of units intelligently will destroy anyone doing 1a. I mean, that's not a stretch, is it?
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.
You are so wrong in your entire drivel of a post that it hurts that you are allowed to even speak on these forums
He has no understanding of SC2, which is why he had a gimmicky build exposing early bunkers and salvage to win him games
Once that was taken away from him, he fell appart, he absolutely self destructed and everyone and their mother is beating his face in daily on Battle.net.
Before you comment on things at least have some knowledge, take it from those of us who have played against him, instead of writing a long winded post about basically nothing.
NTT is a player who cannot evolve, his 15 minutes of semi fame on EU servers is gone and he is not good enough to hang in there with the top
He is the exact same type of player who abused Reapers and got Diamond, then people figured it out and now they are whining that "SC2 sucks " when it is infact themselves that suck
On October 07 2010 02:03 attackfighter wrote: Easy micro means you only have to hit 1a and spam your spell hotkeys to perform 99% optimally.
Which is exactly how SC/BW was for the longest time, so I fail to see the point. Heck, a lot of "high level" BW is still like that (see: 1a dragoons, spam storm | 1a marines, click stim | 1a ling/ultra, spam dark swarm).
On October 07 2010 02:06 DJEtterStyle wrote: NTT makes some good points, but he's too upset to make them well. The major issue with SC2 is one that exists in any RTS: players can make stupid decisions and still win.
It's a question of human psychology. Most players don't go into a game saying, "I'm going to start with a flexible build, scout, and adapt my play." Instead, they blindly execute a build order and hope for the best. We've all lost games from play that made no logical sense whatsoever, situations in which your opponent was not reacting properly to anything he scouted and just blindly making units. The difference was that, in Brood War, superior mechanics could save you from that loss; you could claw your way back into the game. In SC2, though, you just lose; the game mechanics are so simple that the first setback puts you on a slippery slope from which you can never recover.
SC2 is fine. It's acceptable. It's a good RTS. I got my $60 worth. But I won't be playing it in 2011.
This is my problem as well. The way the game and, importantly, the maps are structured forbids certain type of playing. Due to Blizzard/Activision's insistence on close, quick offense maps--and their vice like grips on real tournaments--I'm not sure the game will ever be as interesting as BW. The mantra of 'terrible terrible damage' is true, but this makes for a dull experience(playing and watching).
Not to say that SC2 is "bad", or something like that, but the game's structure is limiting. I find this to be boring, in the long run. Perhaps it will be fixed in expansions or relevant patches.
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.
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.
His point isn't stupid at all. During the GSL S1 you were able to clearly see that some people were much better at macro. The fact that you can put multiple buildings under the same hotkey hasn't changed the fact that the people with better awareness and macro "rhythm" had better production efficiency. Everyone was not performing equally, and various games were won and lost because of better or worse (gasp) macro.
For micro, do we even have to bring up Tester's force field usage that were clearly better than some other Protoss players? There were many large engagements that were won or lost due to micro ability as well.
On October 07 2010 02:03 attackfighter wrote: Easy micro means you only have to hit 1a and spam your spell hotkeys to perform 99% optimally.
Which is exactly how SC/BW was for the longest time, so I fail to see the point. Heck, a lot of "high level" BW is still like that (see: 1a dragoons, spam storm | 1a marines, click stim | 1a ling/ultra, spam dark swarm).
I would like to direct you to Shauni's Stream on the right. SC:BW is not 1a stim or 1a spell victories.
NTT = hasudrone, when he was at his prime everyone respected the guy. When the replay feature added on BW, ppl were watching hasudrone's replays, I was trying to learn from his replays too... He was beating THE names, because he was one of THE names...
On October 07 2010 02:08 Herculix wrote: requesting a replay of NTT able to micro multiple battles in different areas of the map while expanding and macroing without missing a beat. since everything is such low APM he should be able to handle it no problem right? only one is necessary. i noticed he's in the uber-league for EU with dimaga, naniwa etc. so someone should have a replay. i assume he plays well if he's in that league.
There are plenty of pre-patch NTT reps on sites like sc2rep.com, just put his name in the search box.
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.
You are so wrong in your entire drivel of a post that it hurts that you are allowed to even speak on these forums
He has no understanding of SC2, which is why he had a gimmicky build exposing early bunkers and salvage to win him games
Once that was taken away from him, he fell appart, he absolutely self destructed and everyone and their mother is beating his face in daily on Battle.net.
Before you comment on things at least have some knowledge, take it from those of us who have played against him, instead of writing a long winded post about basically nothing.
NTT is a player who cannot evolve, his 15 minutes of semi fame on EU servers is gone and he is not good enough to hang in there with the top
He is the exact same type of player who abused Reapers and got Diamond, then people figured it out and now they are whining that "SC2 sucks " when it is infact themselves that suck
My reference to his knowledge of RTS games was from my time watching him play first hand in broodwar. He is #58 on the EU server. If you think he is that terrible and still that high up on the ladder then it says a lot more about the difficulty of SC2 than you are willing to admit.
You need to calm down. I did not insult you personally nor attack you personally. I supported Nazgul and gave my opinion which stems from playing RTS games for 11+ years at a fairly decent level. If you disagree, then you disagree but my post was not drivel.
On October 07 2010 02:12 Musiq wrote: I would like to direct you to Shauni's Stream on the right. SC:BW is not 1a stim or 1a spell victories.
I'm not saying it is at the highest levels, but it still remains so at most levels. SC2, likewise, is not simply 1a/spell-spam victories at the highest levels, however - like BW - it remains so at most levels.
EDIT: Oh, and just to add - I love watching Shauni's stream. I've been a BW player since it came out - still love the game.
On October 07 2010 02:03 attackfighter wrote: Easy micro means you only have to hit 1a and spam your spell hotkeys to perform 99% optimally.
Which is exactly how SC/BW was for the longest time, so I fail to see the point. Heck, a lot of "high level" BW is still like that (see: 1a dragoons, spam storm | 1a marines, click stim | 1a ling/ultra, spam dark swarm).
I played D- on iccup but even there I had to use more micro than I do in SC2. Protoss still had to hit 2a and 3a as well. Terran could not just attack move against zerg, lurkers, dark swarm, scourge and the amount of irradiates you had to do made that MU extremely micro taxing. Zerg was probably the hardest race to micro, since you had tons of control groups and you needed good surrounds and timing in order to beat any decent opponent.
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.
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.
His point isn't stupid at all. During the GSL S1 you were able to clearly see that some people were much better at macro. The fact that you can put multiple buildings under the same hotkey hasn't changed the fact that the people with better awareness and macro "rhythm" had better production efficiency. Everyone was not performing equally, and various games were won and lost because of better or worse (gasp) macro.
For micro, do we even have to bring up Tester's force field usage that were clearly better than some other Protoss players? There were many large engagements that were won or lost due to micro ability as well.
There were tons of shitty pros at GSL (and all other tournaments) though. Look at top pros, like fruit seller and hope torture: they both performed micro and macro tasks fairly optimally, and so their games were decided more by their scouting and build orders/
I'm not sure you have much of an understanding of what is going on here. It should be obvious that the level in SC2 increases very rapidly compared other games in their first few months. That alone should put an end to the whole use free time to get better argument. It's really kills any discussion to say people shouldn't say anything but instead practice more.
I have a considerable understanding of what's going on. Yes, people improve better at SC2 than they did at BW. I don't contest that fact but I do contest the fact that it's somehow a bad thing. If these players are "pros" they should be able to put that "extra bit of awesome" to use somewhere else in the game. Instead, what we're getting are a lot of players just complaining how new players are able to play at a much higher level. To be quite honest, it sounds like sour grapes, or wounded pride. All the years of practicing clunky mechanics to the point where it requires no thought are suddenly undermined by the fact that *gasp* someone recognized the game can be made to have more sensible game play.
I don't see how this "kills the use free time to get better" argument, either. If you spend less time staring at your base you have more time to position your units, micro them in combat, attack at multiple locations simultaneously. There's only so much a person can do at one time. So you can have the old BW style of a balance of micro/macro taking up your time or you can have the SC2 style where micro and tactics (potentially) have more importance than macro. I think the latter is far more interesting.
Any new game will inspire creativity in the earlier periods. This guaranteed. The main argument is that once creativity is spotted it is doable for other top players to copy this creativity rapidly. Simply following TLO/Jinro and the oGs guys on ladder it is amazing how when someone on the Korean ladder introduces a new strategy that works how he will be playing against it the next day.
I don't see how this is any different than it was in Brood War. Perhaps you could explain? Are you saying that it's simply easy to counter new strats because of the way units are made to counter certain things, or because you can get replays so easily, or because it's just an easier game over all?
Is this a joke? Every single guy in the top of SC2 that has a BW background will tell you BW was a tougher game. There is no need to ridicule them for this at all. Of course people will not comment on how they love how X makes units in SC2 because everybody makes the same amount of units, that is the whole point. If you followed any BW at all you will know how indeed people watching comment on amazing macro constantly.
The only thing I said is that saying it's tougher because there was a lack of MBS, automining, etc. is silly. It was not that big a deal. I have indeed watched (and played) a lot of BW. I didn't say people don't comment on macro - I said they don't go out to watch a match specifically for the excitement of watching macro - and they don't, unless they want info for practicing their own. When you think of the most bad-ass games out there, it's almost always the micro and tactics that are most exciting - and SC2 doesn't detract from that at all.
By now I'm starting to come across as some BW groupie but in fact I love SC2 and think it's an awesome game. It's not going to change and everybody has to accept this. All I am doing here is make sure that all the correct information is provided because so much crap is being spread that it becomes difficult for people to educate themselves properly.
I don't think you're a BW groupie; but just because people don't agree with your views doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about with regard to BW - they just have a different opinion. As stated, I've played BW for over 10 years - to the point where I'm pretty sure it was unhealthy. I've watched the game change over the years, seen virtually every major tournament, watched pros come and go, blah, blah, blah. I "get" it. I just don't agree that SC2 is somehow "lacking" simply because MBS, automining and others are involved. Once anyone got to the point where macro was second nature, it literally took 5 seconds to hit a key to return to base, spam some produciton, move an SCV and then hotkey your ass back to a battle. Not a big deal in my opinion, and entirely overstated by the more vocal pros out there.
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.
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.
His point isn't stupid at all. During the GSL S1 you were able to clearly see that some people were much better at macro. The fact that you can put multiple buildings under the same hotkey hasn't changed the fact that the people with better awareness and macro "rhythm" had better production efficiency. Everyone was not performing equally, and various games were won and lost because of better or worse (gasp) macro.
For micro, do we even have to bring up Tester's force field usage that were clearly better than some other Protoss players? There were many large engagements that were won or lost due to micro ability as well.
It has been said before but I'll say it again pointing at a single tournament very early in the life of this game to somehow think you can prove or disprove something about how the game will look in the long run is simply wrong. No matter which theory is right there is no way people will play equal styles in the very first large tournament.
On October 07 2010 02:06 DJEtterStyle wrote: NTT makes some good points, but he's too upset to make them well. The major issue with SC2 is one that exists in any RTS: players can make stupid decisions and still win.
It's a question of human psychology. Most players don't go into a game saying, "I'm going to start with a flexible build, scout, and adapt my play." Instead, they blindly execute a build order and hope for the best. We've all lost games from play that made no logical sense whatsoever, situations in which your opponent was not reacting properly to anything he scouted and just blindly making units. The difference was that, in Brood War, superior mechanics could save you from that loss; you could claw your way back into the game. In SC2, though, you just lose; the game mechanics are so simple that the first setback puts you on a slippery slope from which you can never recover.
I do agree the mechanics changed the ability to come back from a hole, or the ability to win despite leaky gameplay, but definitely not to the extent that you feel. Come from behind wins weren't that easy/didn't happen that frequently in BW and it's certainly not THAT hard in SC2.
If anything, it's late game comebacks that are changed. A crappy player that happened to get a random lead in the game would typically forget to have his probes mining on his third or fourth expo in BW. Maybe they'd forget a key upgrade for like Obs speed and lose a contain because of that. Automine is a very minor thing in most games, but there, it's the difference between an economy stagnating and truckin along. Forget to do a critical upgrade?? CHROOOONOOOOO.
So yes, some leaks are patched in that regard, but the good kid who is behind still has access to those same things. He can focus less on macro and more on very disciplined unit control (the key to come back wins in both BW and SC2). Slightly different, but at the heart of the issue, not really too much different
On October 07 2010 02:08 Herculix wrote: requesting a replay of NTT able to micro multiple battles in different areas of the map while expanding and macroing without missing a beat. since everything is such low APM he should be able to handle it no problem right? only one is necessary. i noticed he's in the uber-league for EU with dimaga, naniwa etc. so someone should have a replay. i assume he plays well if he's in that league.
There are plenty of pre-patch NTT reps on sites like sc2rep.com, just put his name in the search box.
well, i wanted them to be in this thread so it could be made aware to everyone who's interested what this guy's skill level is. i remember seeing like 1 game of him but idr how he plays.
so, i found the replay. it was a pretty awesome ga,e 40 minutes long vs socke. ironically NTT cries about how he is limited in options, socke tells him he can go BCs, NTT goes BCs and... well i won't spoil it. but here it is.
On October 07 2010 02:20 attackfighter wrote: I played D- on iccup but even there I had to use more micro than I do in SC2. Protoss still had to hit 2a and 3a as well. Terran could not just attack move against zerg, lurkers, dark swarm, scourge and the amount of irradiates you had to do made that MU extremely micro taxing. Zerg was probably the hardest race to micro, since you had tons of control groups and you needed good surrounds and timing in order to beat any decent opponent.
And who's to say SC2 won't be just as hard in a few years? You mention dark swarm but that's endgame. You can't just 1a against Zerg at the moment either with bio, any decent Zerg will have infestors and wreck your world. Zerg are still the most mechanically demanding race in SC2 as well, so....I'm not sure what your point is. More micro is required? Give SC2 a year, more micro/macro will be required than now. Heck, 4gate isn't even scary anymore. A few months ago it was feared.
Look at top pros, like fruit seller and hope torture: they both performed micro and macro tasks fairly optimally, and so their games were decided more by their scouting and build orders/
FruitDealer outplayed HopeTorture pure and simple. There were no "BO victories" or anything of the sort. FruitDealer stomped all over anything HopeTorture tried to do (especially drops), and simply outplayed him.
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.
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.
His point isn't stupid at all. During the GSL S1 you were able to clearly see that some people were much better at macro. The fact that you can put multiple buildings under the same hotkey hasn't changed the fact that the people with better awareness and macro "rhythm" had better production efficiency. Everyone was not performing equally, and various games were won and lost because of better or worse (gasp) macro.
For micro, do we even have to bring up Tester's force field usage that were clearly better than some other Protoss players? There were many large engagements that were won or lost due to micro ability as well.
There were tons of shitty pros at GSL (and all other tournaments) though. Look at top pros, like fruit seller and hope torture: they both performed micro and macro tasks fairly optimally, and so their games were decided more by their scouting and build orders/
I cannot understand why many BW (or former BW) players cant accept the fact that BW might not be the best game ever. I realise that not everyone is like this, but still.
Many people will just say "BW was harder" or "BW had better units etc" without realising that it is only their own opinion.
Everyone is trying to argue about what the better game is, when you cant. You can say which game YOU prefer, or which game YOU believe is the hardest one, but you cant just state it as fact and end there.
Also i feel it to be kinda silly that 2months into SC2 people are already saying that it is harder/isnt harder than BW. BW has been there for 12 years, lets see what SC2 is like in 12 years, probably isnt even the same game. In 12 years there will probably be complex strategies and way different BOs than today.
Honestly it's like watching the first 10 mins of Ironman 2 and then just saying that it's worse than the first one.
People have played BW for like 10 years, obviously they are gonna claim that it was the hardest game in the world, even if it wasnt. Same thing is gonna happen in 10 years with SC2, people are gonna say that it was really hard, way harder than SC3 (and way better), even though it might not be.
People just need to realise that there is no right or wrong in this debate. BW is not harder than SC2. SC2 is not harder than BW.
It has been said before but I'll say it again pointing at a single tournament very early in the life of this game to somehow think you can prove or disprove something about how the game will look in the long run is simply wrong. No matter which theory is right there is no way people will play equal styles in the very first large tournament.
Double sided. No one can say that what people are doing now will have no room for uniqueness later on. You need to give the game time and see how it develops before ultimately conceding that it will never change.
Look at top pros, like fruit seller and hope torture: they both performed micro and macro tasks fairly optimally, and so their games were decided more by their scouting and build orders/
FruitDealer outplayed HopeTorture pure and simple. There were no "BO victories" or anything of the sort. FruitDealer stomped all over anything HopeTorture tried to do (especially drops), and simply outplayed him.
exactly. hell the only BO victory was susposed to be the scrap station game in favor of hopetorture. + Show Spoiler +
On October 07 2010 02:20 attackfighter wrote: I played D- on iccup but even there I had to use more micro than I do in SC2. Protoss still had to hit 2a and 3a as well. Terran could not just attack move against zerg, lurkers, dark swarm, scourge and the amount of irradiates you had to do made that MU extremely micro taxing. Zerg was probably the hardest race to micro, since you had tons of control groups and you needed good surrounds and timing in order to beat any decent opponent.
And who's to say SC2 won't be just as hard in a few years? You mention dark swarm but that's endgame. You can't just 1a against Zerg at the moment either with bio, any decent Zerg will have infestors and wreck your world. Zerg are still the most mechanically demanding race in SC2 as well, so....I'm not sure what your point is. More micro is required? Give SC2 a year, more micro/macro will be required than now. Heck, 4gate isn't even scary anymore. A few months ago it was feared.
You couldn't attack move mid game either cause of lurkers.
I'm 1400 diamond and I attack move all the time, and that's with terran (the most harrassment based race). Look at protoss for example, they barely even have a choice, unless they're cheesing or something they're going to get collusus/HT and 1a+storm all game. Zerg just turtles with mutalisks and then attack moves with ultras at the end*.
*well to be fair they might split their force in two in order to surround better
FruitDealer outplayed HopeTorture pure and simple. There were no "BO victories" or anything of the sort. FruitDealer stomped all over anything HopeTorture tried to do (especially drops), and simply outplayed him.
ever wonder why the drops didn't work? cause FD's build was prepared for them. he didn't pull off insane micro or macro to win, he just scouted and reacted appropriately
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.
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.
His point isn't stupid at all. During the GSL S1 you were able to clearly see that some people were much better at macro. The fact that you can put multiple buildings under the same hotkey hasn't changed the fact that the people with better awareness and macro "rhythm" had better production efficiency. Everyone was not performing equally, and various games were won and lost because of better or worse (gasp) macro.
For micro, do we even have to bring up Tester's force field usage that were clearly better than some other Protoss players? There were many large engagements that were won or lost due to micro ability as well.
It has been said before but I'll say it again pointing at a single tournament very early in the life of this game to somehow think you can prove or disprove something about how the game will look in the long run is simply wrong. No matter which theory is right there is no way people will play equal styles in the very first large tournament.
I agree, but even if we look at the last few years of BW where the great majority of players will play in the style that is popular at the time, there's always people that push it further and better than their contemporaries. SC2 doesn't even have its expansions out and it hasn't even been out for a year, and even with the "easier" micro and macro, there's a lot of times where splitting your units into multiple hotkeys instead of simply putting every damned thing in one hotkey is going to allow you to micro better.
When I read about some D- guy from iCCup claiming that the game is easier because you can just put all your shit in "1" and attack move, it just boggles my mind because in midgame and lategame engagements you will get slaughtered in various situations if you do so. Macro isn't really that easy either. Of course being able to set a different rally point for my drones makes things A LOT cleaner but still, making sure I'm not neglecting my larva injects and managing my creep spread sufficiently while not losing focus of my units and minimap isn't really that easy. Some aspects of management may have become simpler but there's still a lot of things to do, both old and new, that will allow the better player to play better while being confined to the same interface as everyone else.
I understand that this person was well known in Brood War and probably for good reasons but...
We show our maturity (or lack of it) in the way we react to issues we have trouble with.
I understand their are some things this person may or may not like about this new SC2 game (emphasis on game) but really the way he reacted is just about as fucking immature as you can get. If you got problems then talk about them, there is no need to talk down to a community that you are (apparently) trying to communicate with. That first letter or post or w/e was just fucking pathetic, and yea at that point I dont really give a shit who the guy is or what he's done because he reacts just like a juvenile would. No respect for this person or what he has to say.
My .02c If you want to discuss issues grow up and do it like an adult.
On October 07 2010 01:59 LostDevil wrote: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".
You realize people could make it to C+ by just 6-pooling people on Iccup right? I guess that makes BW a bad game too?
6 pool? you dont know what you are talking about. There was a guy that wanted to 5pool to see how high he would get and he didnt get past D plus...
On October 07 2010 01:59 LostDevil wrote: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".
You realize people could make it to C+ by just 6-pooling people on Iccup right? I guess that makes BW a bad game too?
6 pool? you dont know what you are talking about. There was a guy that wanted to 5pool to see how high he would get and he didnt get past D plus...
I'm surprised he was even a solid D. As a D/D- I almost never lost to early game cheese...
Fact is bw players cant let go of the past , if sc2 is better game or not is a matter of preference and till the whole trilogy is complete you cant simply compare the games.
quit bitching and compare , all the time he just raging quited just like the whole im gonna switch races argument with zerg players and they just won the whole gsl tournament ;p
On October 07 2010 02:36 attackfighter wrote: You couldn't attack move mid game either cause of lurkers.
I'm 1400 diamond and I attack move all the time, and that's with terran (the most harrassment based race). Look at protoss for example, they barely even have a choice, unless they're cheesing or something they're going to get collusus/HT and 1a+storm all game. Zerg just turtles with mutalisks and then attack moves with ultras at the end*.
*well to be fair they might split their force in two in order to surround better
You can't a-move now either mid-game or late because of infestors. Fungal tears bio ball apart. Or you'll get owned by burrowed banelings, or fungal+baneling, or just speed banelings.
ever wonder why the drops didn't work? cause FD's build was prepared for them. he didn't pull off insane micro or macro to win, he just scouted and reacted appropriately
Wait, so you're saying catching every. single. drop. isn't a skill? You're saying that scouting and reacting appropriately isn't a skill? Micro and macro aren't the only two skill sets for an RTS pro-gamer, but just to touch on macro - FruitDealer has extremely good macro, his economy/army management was in a league of its own during the GSL. Did you even watch the GSL?
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.
I think Nazgul summed it up pretty well so I can only add to one of his points in that there is players with their own style already. None more so than the Peruvian, CatZ.
That guy has one of the most unique and interesting Zerg styles of play out there. Is he a world beater winning GSL, IEM, and MLG? No. But he is doing very well with a style that is all his own. The guy will 7 pool in ZvP, you will know he is doing it, and most people still lose. Why? CatZ has figured out that opening and every conceivable follow up that he knows exactly every move to make when. He is good at counting opponent workers and using his last couple Zerglings to snipe JUST enough so he ends up ahead on workers. There's also his now sort fo well known Proxy Infestor Pit into double fungal on all of an opponents mineral lines. Who does that? CatZ does all the time, most notably against LZ at MLG lol........
There will be styles, but I think unlike BW they will only show AFTER people really break down and 90% figure out the game. Except for CatZ, he is a rare breed.
On October 07 2010 02:36 attackfighter wrote: You couldn't attack move mid game either cause of lurkers.
I'm 1400 diamond and I attack move all the time, and that's with terran (the most harrassment based race). Look at protoss for example, they barely even have a choice, unless they're cheesing or something they're going to get collusus/HT and 1a+storm all game. Zerg just turtles with mutalisks and then attack moves with ultras at the end*.
*well to be fair they might split their force in two in order to surround better
You can't a-move now either mid-game or late because of infestors. Fungal tears bio ball apart. Or you'll get owned by burrowed banelings, or fungal+baneling, or just speed banelings.
ever wonder why the drops didn't work? cause FD's build was prepared for them. he didn't pull off insane micro or macro to win, he just scouted and reacted appropriately
Wait, so you're saying catching every. single. drop. isn't a skill? You're saying that scouting and reacting appropriately isn't a skill? Micro and macro aren't the only two skill sets for an RTS pro-gamer, but just to touch on macro - FruitDealer has extremely good macro, his economy/army management was in a league of its own during the GSL. Did you even watch the GSL?
So what do they do instead of attack moving? Turtle? the most micro I see is when the terran kites... asides from that all battles seem to revolve around attack move + spell spam
On October 07 2010 02:36 attackfighter wrote: You couldn't attack move mid game either cause of lurkers.
I'm 1400 diamond and I attack move all the time, and that's with terran (the most harrassment based race). Look at protoss for example, they barely even have a choice, unless they're cheesing or something they're going to get collusus/HT and 1a+storm all game. Zerg just turtles with mutalisks and then attack moves with ultras at the end*.
*well to be fair they might split their force in two in order to surround better
You can't a-move now either mid-game or late because of infestors. Fungal tears bio ball apart. Or you'll get owned by burrowed banelings, or fungal+baneling, or just speed banelings.
ever wonder why the drops didn't work? cause FD's build was prepared for them. he didn't pull off insane micro or macro to win, he just scouted and reacted appropriately
Wait, so you're saying catching every. single. drop. isn't a skill? You're saying that scouting and reacting appropriately isn't a skill? Micro and macro aren't the only two skill sets for an RTS pro-gamer, but just to touch on macro - FruitDealer has extremely good macro, his economy/army management was in a league of its own during the GSL. Did you even watch the GSL?
So what do they do instead of attack moving? Turtle? the most micro I see is when the terran kites... asides from that all battles seem to revolve around attack move + spell spam
Watch Artosis cast, Idra Vs. BoxeR, SC1 Pro's coming over are going to change a lot.
On October 07 2010 02:36 attackfighter wrote: You couldn't attack move mid game either cause of lurkers.
I'm 1400 diamond and I attack move all the time, and that's with terran (the most harrassment based race). Look at protoss for example, they barely even have a choice, unless they're cheesing or something they're going to get collusus/HT and 1a+storm all game. Zerg just turtles with mutalisks and then attack moves with ultras at the end*.
*well to be fair they might split their force in two in order to surround better
You can't a-move now either mid-game or late because of infestors. Fungal tears bio ball apart. Or you'll get owned by burrowed banelings, or fungal+baneling, or just speed banelings.
ever wonder why the drops didn't work? cause FD's build was prepared for them. he didn't pull off insane micro or macro to win, he just scouted and reacted appropriately
Wait, so you're saying catching every. single. drop. isn't a skill? You're saying that scouting and reacting appropriately isn't a skill? Micro and macro aren't the only two skill sets for an RTS pro-gamer, but just to touch on macro - FruitDealer has extremely good macro, his economy/army management was in a league of its own during the GSL. Did you even watch the GSL?
So what do they do instead of attack moving? Turtle? the most micro I see is when the terran kites... asides from that all battles seem to revolve around attack move + spell spam
Kiting is a necessity in PvP, or anytime you use stalkers. Zerg, if you don't micro, you will lose, period. Zerg units get shredded in a heads up battle unless you utilize them properly. There are TONS of other examples where basic micro is required just to even compete. And mindlessly spamming spells... let's see you use FF even half as well as TLO or some pros??
Why even bother posting if you can't identify basic micro that literally happens in every game??
On October 07 2010 02:53 attackfighter wrote: So what do they do instead of attack moving? Turtle?
Most people I run into, yea. But on occasion I'll play a good player that micros his marauders in front to absorb the baneling shots. In those cases I have to counter-micro my banelings to not hit the marauders. Kinda get where I'm coming from now? Just because the majority of players a-move does not mean that's the best way to go about it (or 99% effective). It just means that most people like a-moving at the moment.
I admit it, I'm guilty of a-moving and neglecting micro a lot more than I should, but that's why I'm not a high-level player. Their micro/macro sets them apart from me, which is just how it should be.
On October 07 2010 02:36 attackfighter wrote: You couldn't attack move mid game either cause of lurkers.
I'm 1400 diamond and I attack move all the time, and that's with terran (the most harrassment based race). Look at protoss for example, they barely even have a choice, unless they're cheesing or something they're going to get collusus/HT and 1a+storm all game. Zerg just turtles with mutalisks and then attack moves with ultras at the end*.
*well to be fair they might split their force in two in order to surround better
You can't a-move now either mid-game or late because of infestors. Fungal tears bio ball apart. Or you'll get owned by burrowed banelings, or fungal+baneling, or just speed banelings.
ever wonder why the drops didn't work? cause FD's build was prepared for them. he didn't pull off insane micro or macro to win, he just scouted and reacted appropriately
Wait, so you're saying catching every. single. drop. isn't a skill? You're saying that scouting and reacting appropriately isn't a skill? Micro and macro aren't the only two skill sets for an RTS pro-gamer, but just to touch on macro - FruitDealer has extremely good macro, his economy/army management was in a league of its own during the GSL. Did you even watch the GSL?
So what do they do instead of attack moving? Turtle? the most micro I see is when the terran kites... asides from that all battles seem to revolve around attack move + spell spam
Watch Artosis cast, Idra Vs. BoxeR, SC1 Pro's coming over are going to change a lot.
Yeah I watched that... there wasn't a lot of micro. I saw some fungals going down, boxer suiciding his army to kill a hatch, boxer putting tanks on the unreachable cliff (that wasn't micro though I think that's what you're referring to) and a bunch of dropship play. The dropship play was fine, however everything else was just boring and nothing really wowed me.
TLO's game 1 in the GSL would've been a better example of micro/macro potential in SC2 imo.
Thats funny considering how bad his opponent fucked up in order to lose the huge advantage he already had.
Sure TLO played ok but nothing amazing.
User was temp banned for this post. Don't take a random statement out of context and then respond to a part of it that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
It's just gimmicks upon gimmicks upon gimmicks. Maps are horrendous, balance is non existent, gameplay is straightjacketed, and monkeys can be trained to execute some of these build orders. Micro is easy, macro is easy and games are won or lost based purely on randomly chosen build orders.
Another thing to note is that the future of e-sports is highly dependant on not just the gameplay itself, but how much fun the game is to watch. Spectators are hugely important.
A lot of the stuff that people find so impressive about BW, is stuff that is only impressive once you've played a decent amount of BW yourself and attempted to copy it. Show someone who has never played a game of BW a mechanically "impressive" bit of micro or macro, and it is doubtful that they will be nearly as impressed, because they haven't played the game. Getting Dragoons to do exactly what you want might be hard as fuck...but you don't know that until you've actually tried to sit down and told a Dragoon what to do and have it march off in some random direction. To someone who hasn't really played, Dragoons acting in a sensible way doesn't seem impressive, it just seems natural. Similarly, other micro tricks just seem wierd. "Oh, thats not 1 muta, its actually 10 stacked on top of each other." Isn't going to impress someone who hasn't played the game, its gonna prompt a "wtf?"
This is a major issue with BW, because as time goes on, fewer and fewer people have actually played the game. This is especially true in the West, where almost nobody under the age of 18 has played BW. To these people, so much of what impresses other players about pro-level playing in BW isn't going to be impressive, because they have no actual concept of how difficult it is to do. To someone who hasn't played the game, perfectly controlling your workers to mine is no more impressive than automining--in fact, it literally looks exactly the same. Casting a bunch of storms in succession without smartcasting isn't any more impressive, because they've never tried to do it. To someone who's never played the game, it seems natural that you'd be able to cast storms as quickly as you need to and wherever you want them. A whole lot of BW expertise is about making insanely difficult stuff look easy...but thats only impressive if you know how difficult it actually is. if you don't, then guess what? It just looks, well, easy. Natural. The way things should obviously be.
SC2 has a couple of advantages in this regard. The first is simply that because its so much newer, many more people in the West have played it, which gives them more context. But the second is that a lot of what is impressive in SC2 is impressive in an obvious way that isn't relying on a deeper understanding of the game. For example, expertly using Forcefields the way Tester does, or really abusive Blink play on the edges of Delta Quadrant--those aren't about making things that are really difficult to do look easy, they are inherantly flashy manuevers that are impressive in *obvious* ways, whether you've played the game or not.
A lot of the people talking about how BW is superior as a spectator sport are people who play and love BW. Given that context, it may well be. But that context does not exist for most people these days, especially in the west. And since thats never gonna change, the ability for BW to grow as an e-sport is limited.
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.
I think Nazgul summed it up pretty well so I can only add to one of his points in that there is players with their own style already. None more so than the Peruvian, CatZ.
That guy has one of the most unique and interesting Zerg styles of play out there. Is he a world beater winning GSL, IEM, and MLG? No. But he is doing very well with a style that is all his own. The guy will 7 pool in ZvP, you will know he is doing it, and most people still lose. Why? CatZ has figured out that opening and every conceivable follow up that he knows exactly every move to make when. He is good at counting opponent workers and using his last couple Zerglings to snipe JUST enough so he ends up ahead on workers. There's also his now sort fo well known Proxy Infestor Pit into double fungal on all of an opponents mineral lines. Who does that? CatZ does all the time, most notably against LZ at MLG lol........
There will be styles, but I think unlike BW they will only show AFTER people really break down and 90% figure out the game. Except for CatZ, he is a rare breed.
Players will still deviate from each other in their unit control and decition making and as for your mention of Catz there are more than one unique player in the foreign scene TLO pretty much started the whole infestor zergling trend during beta and to call one player a Rare breed is like beating a dead horse. If sc brood war lives for another 10 years flash will have his successor, even if his level of play seems like an unclimbable mountain. For what its worth players who stick out in your mind have a slightly different approach or mindset towards the game that is for sure.
The way i read it there is clearly alot more to TNNs decition to quit sc2 than what he has forwarded to the public similar to the fruitseller thread and taking a look at his post history on bnet its not all gumdrops and icecream, the guy clearly was biased from the getgo or atleast have been feeding this line of thought for quite some time.
People burn out, and loose their passion or their passions // interest in a subject simply change. I simply want to wish him good luck and hope he puts out the same effort into whatever he intends to spend his time on that he did during his prime in brood war.
A lot of the stuff that people find so impressive about BW, is stuff that is only impressive once you've played a decent amount of BW yourself
no, you just need to listen on korean caster enthusiasm during a reaver drop.
Brood War sucks by comparison... time to move on and stop getting butt-hurt because they made the game more.... ergonomic is the term ill use. There will still be varying degrees of skill and the argument that "oh its so easy because of stuff chronoboost exists to make up for mistakes" doesnt fly either because... the player who makes fewer mistakes is going to come out victorious.
Two players go the exact same build, same unit comp, everything... Player A chronoboosts everything greatly... player B only chronos because he fucks up his macro a bit and has to use it to try to make up for mistakes. Player A wins ...every...single...time.
NTT is just a whiny little bish I watched a bunch of his replays when he was doing his cute little mass air cheese against protoss. The real problem he is having is with the emergence of two strategies that don't crumble to his cheese. He's just another bad-mannered washed up broodwar scrub.
Thats funny considering how bad his opponent fucked up in order to lose the huge advantage he already had.
Sure TLO played ok but nothing amazing.
Maybe his opponant played poorly, but the hellion harass was fun to watch and probably fun to play. That's the kind of thing I'd like in SC2: micro that's hard, rewarding and costly if you screw up.
There seem to be two main schools of thought right now:
1) SC2's so much more mechanically simple than BW that, in the near future, there will not be enough to margin and complexity to differentiate top players
or
2) SC2, by doing away with a lot of micromanaging "busy work", will allow that effective APM to be used on the actual in game strategie (splitting forces, attacking multiple screens etc)
He's prolly one of the very very few non koreans who actually got a medal in Starcraft Broodwar :D, but he seems a bit emo atm ;(, even though he's definately right in some ways, but I believe starcraft was shit compared to starcraft Broodwar, and Wc3 roc was shit compared to TFT, let's hope sc II expo will bring us the same boost, even though I don't think sc II is horrible, its definately not as good as I hoped / as many people want you to believe, atleast not from a competitive point of view ~
On October 07 2010 03:15 Jayrod wrote: Brood War sucks by comparison... time to move on and stop getting butt-hurt because they made the game more.... ergonomic is the term ill use. There will still be varying degrees of skill and the argument that "oh its so easy because of stuff chronoboost exists to make up for mistakes" doesnt fly either because... the player who makes fewer mistakes is going to come out victorious.
Two players go the exact same build, same unit comp, everything... Player A chronoboosts everything greatly... player B only chronos because he fucks up his macro a bit and has to use it to try to make up for mistakes. Player A wins ...every...single...time.
NTT is just a whiny little bish I watched a bunch of his replays when he was doing his cute little mass air cheese against protoss. The real problem he is having is with the emergence of two strategies that don't crumble to his cheese. He's just another bad-mannered washed up broodwar scrub.
This thread is the most unexpected bantrap since the Beta Key Roulette.
On another note (this is a actual serious question here), what has NTT done or achieved in SC2? I like to think I follow the scene very closely and didn't even really know he had switched to SC2 until this thread. I know about his BW achievements, but those didn't seem to add up to much in SC2. Again I'm really asking here, not just being a dick. I honestly have never seen a game of his and I spend about 30 hours a week scouting every league and such looking for new hot players. I talk to all the top players that aren't Korean on a daily basis. And not one time until today did he come up...
On October 07 2010 02:25 Mjolnir wrote: I "get" it. I just don't agree that SC2 is somehow "lacking" simply because MBS, automining and others are involved. Once anyone got to the point where macro was second nature, it literally took 5 seconds to hit a key to return to base, spam some produciton, move an SCV and then hotkey your ass back to a battle. Not a big deal in my opinion, and entirely overstated by the more vocal pros out there.
It seems to me like you do not understand the difficulty of BW mechanics. I'd take a guess that you were probably not very good at it, and are now happy to write it off as being trivial and unnecessary because now you and your grandmother can macro like gods in SC2 and no longer want to think about things such as MBS.
It's just gimmicks upon gimmicks upon gimmicks. Maps are horrendous, balance is non existent, gameplay is straightjacketed, and monkeys can be trained to execute some of these build orders. Micro is easy, macro is easy and games are won or lost based purely on randomly chosen build orders.
He does have a point here in my opinion.
i agree with this too, this game is poorely designed
On October 07 2010 02:30 Deadlyfish wrote: I cannot understand why many BW (or former BW) players cant accept the fact that BW might not be the best game ever. I realise that not everyone is like this, but still.
Many people will just say "BW was harder" or "BW had better units etc" without realising that it is only their own opinion.
Everyone is trying to argue about what the better game is, when you cant. You can say which game YOU prefer, or which game YOU believe is the hardest one, but you cant just state it as fact and end there.
Also i feel it to be kinda silly that 2months into SC2 people are already saying that it is harder/isnt harder than BW. BW has been there for 12 years, lets see what SC2 is like in 12 years, probably isnt even the same game. In 12 years there will probably be complex strategies and way different BOs than today.
Honestly it's like watching the first 10 mins of Ironman 2 and then just saying that it's worse than the first one.
People have played BW for like 10 years, obviously they are gonna claim that it was the hardest game in the world, even if it wasnt. Same thing is gonna happen in 10 years with SC2, people are gonna say that it was really hard, way harder than SC3 (and way better), even though it might not be.
People just need to realise that there is no right or wrong in this debate. BW is not harder than SC2. SC2 is not harder than BW.
No. BW is harder than SC2 due to limitations of the unit AI and interface. These are discrete properties of the software that have nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion. I fail to see how talking about what SC2 will be in 12 years is relevant to discussions about game difficulty now.
Sad to see NTT quit SC2 so soon when I thought he might be back. Lol at all the newbies in this thread "who is NTT?" or "I am old school and I've watched 10000000000 pro replays and I've never heard of NTT"
On October 07 2010 03:15 Jayrod wrote: Two players go the exact same build, same unit comp, everything... Player A chronoboosts everything greatly... player B only chronos because he fucks up his macro a bit and has to use it to try to make up for mistakes. Player A wins ...every...single...time.
Thats not the point. The point is its super easy to chronoboost, and its more forgiving too. Chronoboosting is supposed to be a macrohelper, like doing it well will increase your macro relative to someone who is not doing it well. The difference between the chronoboosting skill of a top pro and me is not that big, the difference between how well a pro can macro using MBS and auto mining and me are not that big. Conversely, the difference between me and someone like Best or Stork in macro abilities is ridiculous, its probably not even comparable. There is even a noticeably big difference between the macro ability of me as a former C- BW player and a C+/B- player.
SC2 is definitely easier than BW, its not arguable, but there is tons of new blood in SC2 and some of the new gimmicks and novelty of it makes it really fun and I definitely enjoy playing SC2 more than BW right now and will probably never play BW again. But I can sorta understand why NTT is frustrated as there is nothing worse than losing to a worse player in a situation that was based on luck/gimmick where there is very little you can learn from the experience.
I'm relatively new to the forums and the Starcraft community (played BW casually way back, and now play SC2 slightly more competitively diamond 1100 and the odd lan in my area) and this has quickly become one of my favorite threads...
Not because of the original post, in fact when I read it and the replies that followed I thought this thread would be a black mark on the community and my day in general. On the contrary, the discussion that has followed - in particular Nazgul's posts - has given me a greater insight into what the community perceives as the strengths and shortcomings SC2 personifies relative to BW, an already successful and often quoted favorite game by many.
Personally, I understand the argument that - if everything is easier mechanically, then more players will be able to emulate what is perceived to be the top strategy/build order/control of said unit group, and that this ability to emulate can threaten to dull competition down the road. I also understand the somewhat counter argument that is - if more players can play 'pull off' what is perceived to be the top strategy/build order/control of said unit group, then more players will play the game, more money will be made, and possibly more interest in competitive play will be the result.
My opinion on this is simple, and because I believe it is what the thread is truly about (all of what NTT complains about revolves around the perceived ease of the game relative to past experience. The balance, maps, and other complaints are easily explained by the infancy of the game) I feel I should post it.
The game is mechanically relatively easy, but calling it trash and ignoring its potential to grow and change, and the fun that it offers even now to many, is premature. A game can be easy to execute with a small learning curve even, and still be sucessful. I liken this to all card games for that matter as an example. Choosing what to do with your 'hand' in a card game is all the skill you can add to the game, decision-based skill relying on reading situations and adapting accordingly is one with an infinite cap. Card games can and have been successful as spectator 'sports/games' and in the same vein I see SC2 as having the potential to succeed based on skill separation by way of decision making prowess as opposed to hard and fast mechanics. The fact that this is a slightly "different" measure than what BW offered (more accentuated, it is/was important in BW too) is the cause of any and all concern I see.
Difference, change, growth, whatever you want to call it can be a scary thing for people that are happy with what exists or are generally uncomfortable with the unknown. I think now is the time for all players to embrace the opportunity that SC2 presents us with, and by doing so it will be bound to succeed. Sadly, people have different expectations, different views on what will work and why, and outbursts, even those light with sarcasm as NTT has provided, are inevitable but altogether counter-productive to what most everyone wants - a great SC2 experience now and for whatever its lifecycle sees play out.
On October 07 2010 02:53 attackfighter wrote: So what do they do instead of attack moving? Turtle?
Most people I run into, yea. But on occasion I'll play a good player that micros his marauders in front to absorb the baneling shots. In those cases I have to counter-micro my banelings to not hit the marauders. Kinda get where I'm coming from now? Just because the majority of players a-move does not mean that's the best way to go about it (or 99% effective). It just means that most people like a-moving at the moment.
I admit it, I'm guilty of a-moving and neglecting micro a lot more than I should, but that's why I'm not a high-level player. Their micro/macro sets them apart from me, which is just how it should be.
Well if he target fires your banelings with his tanks, there's not a whole lot you can do to counter-micro. Same thing if he's stimming his marines and kiting your banelings - either he kills them all kiting or you have enough left over to kill him. Maybe attack move isn't entirely accurate in TvZ, but the little micro there is seems fairly easy to do even for me (I am terribad btw) - I think it speaks volumes that I'm able to perform almost as good as your average pro at SC2, but in BW I'm so bad that I can't even begin to do the things a B-teamer pro can.
If you know anything about NTT, you'd know this is the most positive and uplifting thing he has ever posted on the Blizzard forums. It's going in the right direction!
i kind of understand NTT's point of view. what separated the pros and regular players were the multi tasking ability, sc2 has been noobified by a large margin compared to sc1.
grouped buildings, 255 units in 1 group, smart casting, smart fire, auto mining, auto repair, queue system, health and progress bar, etc.
i actually like the new changes since it makes it much easier to play (especially <3 grouped buildings) even though i hated "noobification" that started with wc3 but learned to like it. i do believe sc2 winner shouldn't be decided with 100% on strategy but how its executed awhile attending other details and sc2 surely made that easier to happen for most people. over all i think sc2 brought a good balance between macro and micro. macro became much easier so we can focus on micro.
On October 07 2010 03:34 Lann555 wrote: If you know anything about NTT, you'd know this is the most positive and uplifting thing he has ever posted on the Blizzard forums. It's going in the right direction!
This is to true,laughed so dammn hard when i saw your comment.
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.
im sad really wanted to see ntt back in action
he was the reason i started to play terran back in the days
but your quote justifies why he just couldnt beat elky :D
I think that since I had one of the safest and most conservative play styles in SC:BW I can comment a bit about this with some authority. Being able to beat every single simple, easy-to-execute (but powerful) strategy out there with your one safe strategy that sacrifices economic and army for safety, relying on superior mechanics to get you advantages in economy and army in the long run, is very very very hard. It's one of the most difficult ways to play but when you have a good formula, it can guarantee wins (especially in bo5's). Even for SC:BW 10 years after release, with so much time to refine and perfect build orders and mechanics, it is very difficult to play like that.
PvZ covering 4pool, 9pool speed, 2hat hydra bust, 2hat slow overlord drop, 2hat muta... wow. It can be quite a bitch. And after you sacrifice so many things to cover your ass against all that garbage that anyone can execute nearly perfectly with very little practice, you are probably just playing someone who 12hatched and grabbed a 3rd base and is macroing his ass off and now you're behind entering midgame. And then there are a million pitfalls there. Make 3 Archons instead of 2 and you won't have enough Storm. Get your 3rd Nexus blocked by one Zergling for 60 seconds and you won't have good enough economy in 5 minutes. Just a million things that can go wrong that only someone who has played this situation 1000's of times can know.
PvT proxy Marine rush, 2fac rush, 3fac rush, 1fac 1star drop harass, 2fac 1star drop harass, 14CC, etc. If they go standard fac cc you still worry about several branches in midgame, aggressive dropship harass, aggressive vulture harass, early 3rd CC, double armory, MM tank timing, 6fac timing. All that shit requires different responses from the Protoss. A terran who only does one of those things all the time is gonna be pretty damn good at it without much effort but a Protoss who is trying to play safe and rely on mechanics is going to have to master 10x as many situations as his opponent.
PvP proxy zealot rush, dt rush with no goon range, 10gate 15gate goon rush, 4gate goons, shuttle speed kamikaze reaver drop. Several choices of bullshit that you have to cover. Build one extra Probe and you won't have enough to fend off a 4gate. Scout after ylon to stop proxy zealot rush and risk not getting your first goons out in time to stop 10gate 15gate goon rush. You can't imagine how many little adjustments need to be made to get yourself safe against every option (how many times you have to lose and figure out precisely the smallest thing to change to just barely get by), and after all that effort you've only just survived into midgame with a probable disadvantage.
Proof of these difficulties can be seen in IdrA's play toward the end of his BW career. He was obviously very good mechanically but Terran in SC1 is an especially difficult race to play safe and cover all the bullshit that newbie one-trick-ponies can throw at you.
The fact is that it's going to take way longer and require much more skill and ingenuity to figure out the safe "boring" builds that rely on mechanics and RTS fundamentals to win. The simple yet powerful build orders are relatively easy to discover and they're being done everywhere right now. It is sad for me to see someone like NTT give up at this stage but I'm hoping it's because he just doesn't realize that the odds are stacked against the way he wants to play the game. That style is going to take time but the potential is definitely there.
On October 07 2010 03:27 attackfighter wrote: Well if he target fires your banelings with his tanks, there's not a whole lot you can do to counter-micro. Same thing if he's stimming his marines and kiting your banelings - either he kills them all kiting or you have enough left over to kill him. Maybe attack move isn't entirely accurate in TvZ, but the little micro there is seems fairly easy to do even for me (I am terribad btw) - I think it speaks volumes that I'm able to perform almost as good as your average pro at SC2, but in BW I'm so bad that I can't even begin to do the things a B-teamer pro can.
I love how your logic always assumes the exact counter is in play. If he goes tanks, I'd baneling drop, NOT run them in front. My example was versus bio ball. Tanks != bio ball. And banelings with speed can catch up to micro'd marines, not to mention you should always have lings mixed in to surround and stop the marines from stutter-step microing. Or just have fungal.
And umm, well, I'm not gonna say anything about your "I'm able to perform almost as good as your average pro at SC2" statement beyond that I'm sure an "average pro" would have plenty to say about that.
On Tyler's post: I completely agree, thank you for your insight ^_^
User was warned for this post. Don't clutter up topics with back and forth arguing use our PM function for that.
I think it speaks volumes that I'm able to perform almost as good as your average pro at SC2
Unless you're like a top 500 player in the world, I really, really doubt this. Put IdrA against an average low or mid-level diamond player, and he will kick their ass 100% of the time.
The motto for Blizzard is, "easy to learn, hard to master." Its the "easy to learn" part that has a lot of BW players pissed off, because while BW was many things, "easy to learn" was not one of them. However, while it may be much easier for a noob to play at a reasonable level in SC2, there is still a vast gap between that level and the skill level of the top players. And the top players themselves haven't hit a "skill cap" either--nobody in the GSL had 100% perfect macro, no one had 100% micro, let alone both at the same time. And thats not even factoring in the strategic/decision-making element, which is still in a constantly evolving state.
It is highly probable that the level of play among progamers a year from now will be vastly more advanced than it is at the moment. And even at the moment, the level they are playing at when compared to the average SC2 player is a huge, huge gulf.
And if I looked at a 20 minute NTT replay, I'm sure I could point out 50+ things that he did wrong (probably because he's not fast enough). If he did 50 little things better, perhaps he could survive against whatever gimmick was thrown at him and just laugh at the player who does something that has a 99% chance to fail against someone who knows what they're doing.
On October 07 2010 03:27 attackfighter wrote: Well if he target fires your banelings with his tanks, there's not a whole lot you can do to counter-micro. Same thing if he's stimming his marines and kiting your banelings - either he kills them all kiting or you have enough left over to kill him. Maybe attack move isn't entirely accurate in TvZ, but the little micro there is seems fairly easy to do even for me (I am terribad btw) - I think it speaks volumes that I'm able to perform almost as good as your average pro at SC2, but in BW I'm so bad that I can't even begin to do the things a B-teamer pro can.
I love how your logic always assumes the exact counter is in play. If he goes tanks, I'd baneling drop, NOT run them in front. My example was versus bio ball. Tanks != bio ball. And banelings with speed can catch up to micro'd marines, not to mention you should always have lings mixed in to surround and stop the marines from stutter-step microing. Or just have fungal.
And umm, well, I'm not gonna say anything about your "I'm able to perform almost as good as your average pro at SC2" statement beyond that I'm sure an "average pro" would have plenty to say about that.
On Tyler's post: I completely agree, thank you for your insight ^_^
Overlord don't require much micro... basically you're arguing over hypothetical situations and not my actual point. My point is that there's less micro in SC2 then SC1, and that the little micro there is is easy to perform.
User was warned for this post. Don't clutter up topics with back and forth arguing use our PM function for that.
On October 07 2010 03:42 Fodder03 wrote: Correct me if im wront but wasnt one of Testies aka's NTT? and if so he is not from EU he is Canadian... meaning this ISNT the real NTT?
On October 07 2010 03:42 Fodder03 wrote: Correct me if im wront but wasnt one of Testies aka's NTT? and if so he is not from EU he is Canadian... meaning this ISNT the real NTT?
NTT is from the Netherlands. And it's definitely him. When Warcraft 3 came out, he spent a few months raging about what a n00b-game it was on the forums and eventually dissapeared. I'm sure he will be back for Warcraft 4 / Starcraft 3
I was gonna do a post but then I saw Tylers and realized he just said everything I wanted to say way better, but yeah, it's basically too early to judge the game as harshly as NTT did in this one post.
On October 07 2010 03:43 Liquid`Tyler wrote: And if I looked at a 20 minute NTT replay, I'm sure I could point out 50+ things that he did wrong (probably because he's not fast enough). If he did 50 little things better, perhaps he could survive against whatever gimmick was thrown at him and just laugh at the player who does something that has a 99% chance to fail against someone who knows what they're doing.
Yeah, this is what I don't get. People are coming in here, acting like NTT and other have hit a ceiling, and that complete newbies are coming in and smoking them still using one strat. It's hardly the case at all
On October 07 2010 03:14 awesomoecalypse wrote: Another thing to note is that the future of e-sports is highly dependant on not just the gameplay itself, but how much fun the game is to watch. Spectators are hugely important.
(snipped the rest of your post for brevity's sake)
That's a really important point, and Tyler's post is very good as well.
I played SC1 and BW when the came out, never in a serious way though. I tried a few games on bnet and had my ass handed to me completely. This was before the era of TL.net and Day9 dailies and YouTube. The learning curve was way too high so I never got into it.
So I do appreciate the skill cap of BW (much like someone at the base of Mt. Everest appreciates its height). Obviously the game has depth as well, but it doesn't seem like SC2 is shallower.
As a spectator sport, I don't think it would be good for the game to end up with One Build To Rule Them All. SC2 seems a lot more fluid, with faster transitions and game-changing twists and turns. This makes it 100x more exciting for me to watch than BW.
I've often wondered why Idra's play seems so rigid, sticking with the same unit composition for 10-15 minutes straight, expanding like crazy to keep pumping out more of the same. I guess that's the BW paradigm. Aggressive changes in strategy weren't viable in BW, so Idra keeps pumping ever more money into a safe build.
If you look at Cool's play at GSL, it was the polar opposite of that paradigm. His mechanics are really really solid but his gameplay is much more fluid. Lose 80% of your probes to hellions and banshees? Pfft, adapt and demolish your opponent anyway. It's TLO's creativity with Idra's macro and none of the hesitation. Everything he pulls out of his bag of tricks seems practiced a hundred times over (probably because it is), but he's never set on one path.
I hope that is the future of SC2, and not the safe, rigid (albeit painstakingly hard to maintain) uberbuilds of BW. At least in the West spectacle is a major part of a sport's success.
On October 07 2010 02:25 Mjolnir wrote: The only thing I said is that saying it's tougher because there was a lack of MBS, automining, etc. is silly. It was not that big a deal. I have indeed watched (and played) a lot of BW. I didn't say people don't comment on macro - I said they don't go out to watch a match specifically for the excitement of watching macro - and they don't, unless they want info for practicing their own. When you think of the most bad-ass games out there, it's almost always the micro and tactics that are most exciting - and SC2 doesn't detract from that at all.
Watch Game 2 of Flash vs Jaedong in the WCG, that's an exciting game and no SC2 game looks anything like it at all. It's micro, tactics, macro and great spellcasting. Especially in particular spellcasting, literally anyone can do it in SC2. No crazy Jangbi storms anymore, it won't be impressive when every single game has decent spellcasting.
On October 07 2010 02:30 Deadlyfish wrote: People just need to realise that there is no right or wrong in this debate. BW is not harder than SC2. SC2 is not harder than BW.
Sorry what? It's objectively harder. It's not opinion, it is just a harder game and i got no idea why you'd dispute it. You can enjoy the easier game and some people will enjoy it harder.
On October 07 2010 04:21 infinity2k9 wrote: Sorry what? It's objectively harder. It's not opinion, it is just a harder game and i got no idea why you'd dispute it. You can enjoy the easier game and some people will enjoy it harder.
Is the purpose of the game the difficulty of playing it or the difficulty of beating a highly skilled opponent?
Sorry what? It's objectively harder. It's not opinion, it is just a harder game and i got no idea why you'd dispute it. You can enjoy the easier game and some people will enjoy it harder.
Its a competitive game. The difficulty level is dependant upon the competition. A game can be "easy" or "difficult" in its own right when you play against the computer, but when the purpose is to beat the other players, then the difficulty is dependant on them.
If you're playing a computer, automining makes the game easier. But if you're playing against another player, they benefit from automining just as much as you do.
On October 07 2010 04:21 infinity2k9 wrote: Sorry what? It's objectively harder. It's not opinion, it is just a harder game and i got no idea why you'd dispute it. You can enjoy the easier game and some people will enjoy it harder.
Is the purpose of the game the difficulty of playing it or the difficulty of beating a highly skilled opponent?
Well it's a game there's no 'purpose'. But the difficulty of BW feels fun to me... plenty of games are well known for being a challenge to actually play.
I feel like if there was some added elements in SC2 that would raise the skill cap (while still being accessible for everyone) it would be more entertaining for me to play and watch. I'd like the gap between skill levels to be as high as they were in BW, where a A-team pro was significantly better than a B-teamer, and a B-teamer significantly better than top amateurs. I have a feeling SC2 might be much closer in this regard, now a lot of people will say that's a good thing that more people can compete but personally i am impressed by the sheer skill level of the top players like Jaedong/Flash, its truely amazing what they manage to do. But will anyone in SC2 impress me in the same way? I don't see what they could possibly do ingame that would have me impressed in the same way.
Another thing that may be a problem in my opinion is when the safe builds Nony is talking about are figured out, what will differentiate players from one another? In BW you have players with wildly different styles. People known for their macro, people known for their micro, people known just for specific unit usage. You can tell who is playing in a lot of cases just by watching how they play. In SC2 because of everyone inevitably having perfect macro players are going to be a lot closer, it might be hard for someone to stand out from the crowd.
Sorry what? It's objectively harder. It's not opinion, it is just a harder game and i got no idea why you'd dispute it. You can enjoy the easier game and some people will enjoy it harder.
Its a competitive game. The difficulty level is dependant upon the competition. A game can be "easy" or "difficult" in its own right when you play against the computer, but when the purpose is to beat the other players, then the difficulty is dependant on them.
If you're playing a computer, automining makes the game easier. But if you're playing against another player, they benefit from automining just as much as you do.
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.
I already had great respect for NTT/hasudrone in the early day of scbw. Back in 2000, he was as good as any player in the world; beat Garimto, H.O.T forever, IntoTheRain, etc.
Needless to say, I was shocked when Nazgul beat him 4-0 for the Dutch WCG qualifiers in 2001. He really hated the fact that bw featured replays from patch 1.06 because it revealed his strategies. He quit shortly after.
You gotta respect that at age 28 he got so high up the ladder, but he can't seem to adapt on the long term. Quit bw after reaching the top and now quits sc2 after reaching the foreign top...
In 11 years of watching all kinds of games and styles sc/bw/sc2, no one EVER played like him. He's truely one of a kind and manages to do it at high level. I respect that.
I love how NTT basically says "people who disagree with me are just noobs". He's one of those kinds of people I guess. I'm sure he's always right about everything and anyone who disagrees with him are just idiots.
On October 07 2010 04:37 infinity2k9 wrote: Another thing that may be a problem in my opinion is when the safe builds Nony is talking about are figured out, what will differentiate players from one another? In BW you have players with wildly different styles. People known for their macro, people known for their micro, people known just for specific unit usage. You can tell who is playing in a lot of cases just by watching how they play. In SC2 because of everyone inevitably having perfect macro players are going to be a lot closer, it might be hard for someone to stand out from the crowd.
I don't know if those safe builds will ever happen.
Even if the macro skill cap is eventually reached by every top player, I just don't see everything boiling down to every matchup having two safe strategies clashing and looking for tiny cracks. The speed of the units, the far better pathfinding will make micro battles more about defeating your opponent's forces and less about making Dragoons not randomly run backwards into Mengsk statues. Faster flanking, better positioning, more APM available for multi-pronged harassment during battles.
The question I currently ask my self is whether top players find it hard to be consistent in their winnings because everybody else catches on so quickly to said "gimmicks", because it is generally much harder to play a solid macro game impervious to all kinds of cheese, or because the skill ceiling has effectively lowered dramatically.
Is SC2 in need of a real bonjwa while we keep blaming the hard counters and unbalanced maps for not performing adequately?
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
Drama queen out.
+1
well, i leave the game for a similar reason last week... maybe i`ll give a new chance to the game in the next expansion.
I quit like many other players and friends bored to dead with sc2, real shitty game after all.. so sad.
Oh let me add another point as well. One of the reasons BW evolved so much over the years is not because people just happened to discover things. It's because the mechanics were so hard and skill cap was so high things only became possible as player skill grew. People knew defilers would be good for example but until they could actually effectively have the mechanics to use them, they were not common. Even today theres units such as Queens in ZvT, Ghosts in TvP, Dark Archons in PvZ that are known to be useful but just require so much multitasking ability that its really special to even see them used effectively. 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 04:37 infinity2k9 wrote: Another thing that may be a problem in my opinion is when the safe builds Nony is talking about are figured out, what will differentiate players from one another? In BW you have players with wildly different styles. People known for their macro, people known for their micro, people known just for specific unit usage. You can tell who is playing in a lot of cases just by watching how they play. In SC2 because of everyone inevitably having perfect macro players are going to be a lot closer, it might be hard for someone to stand out from the crowd.
I don't know if those safe builds will ever happen.
Even if the macro skill cap is eventually reached by every top player, I just don't see everything boiling down to every matchup having two safe strategies clashing and looking for tiny cracks. The speed of the units, the far better pathfinding will make micro battles more about defeating your opponent's forces and less about making Dragoons not randomly run backwards into Mengsk statues. Faster flanking, better positioning, more APM available for multi-pronged harassment during battles.
I don't see that ever turning into "safe".
When was micro battles not about defeating your opponents forces? Infact watch the Game 2 of Flash Vs Jaedong WCG, the whole game is basically constant small micro battles all over the map, not just a blob vs another blob. Multi-pronged harass is basically the only thing anyone comes up with as a use for the spare apm... but people even did that in BW while doing everything else.
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.
Would playing against Kasparov be harder if both you and him were both being kicked in the nuts every 3 seconds?
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.
Can we see VODs of you healing mutas with queens mid-battle?
What a surprise that the thread is full of 09-10 reg mouthbreathers shit-talking NTT. I understand I shouldn't expect much reading the SC2 section, but this is depressing.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
Can we see VODs of you healing mutas with queens mid-battle?
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.
Edit: I dunno why i'm making this argument at all actually. Let me guess you barely played BW at all, so you are just arguing to defend SC2 without even knowing what i'm talking about. It'd be much better if someone actually familar with both games wanted a real discussion about the long term prospects of high level SC2, not just some recently joined guy who's just completely on the defensive.
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.
Funny, because Fruitdealer actually did this. It's not just theoretical.
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.
It's not theoretical. FruitDealer uses it to heal mutas damaged during harass so that he can keep effectively harassing Terrans without having to pump more money into his muta force (letting him go ultra quicker). And I honestly don't think all the units in SC2 have been "figured out." I rarely see people blink-microing stalkers unless it's a very small battle. This is something people could utilize that's BW-esque (as far as micro-intensive, requires skill to use effectively) and would improve their game quite a bit.
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.
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!)
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.
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?
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.
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?
Yeah that sound like something good for the game then in the long term, i hope there is more things like that which will be done. It wasn't quite the thing i was talking about but certainly more skillful actions like this will make the game deeper.
Also i don't think the game is figured out at all, i'm just saying in the future it may be, quicker than BW.
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?
How did i miss the point of the argument when i specifically said that? I DON'T THINK that it should be raised like that. I think it should have other skills necessary that separate the top players. If we're comparing to BW i dunno why you say better opponents or varied strategies but nevertheless... there's always going to be varied strategies but the best ones will be worked out to exact supply counts just like in BW (but will happen sooner), then it's going to be still a battle of mechanics anyway it's just going to be a lot closer in skill if people have much easier macro and less multitasking required.
As i said in the previous post, i like that mechanic it's good. That is one example though..
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.
This is another one of those "Cool changing race in GSL2" threads. Someone vents frustration on another forum.... People latch onto to it like a herd of sheep, don't read the whole thread and procceed to post because they saw the faintest hint of someone supporting their views.
"AAHAHHAAH, you have all been calling me wrong, now look! A pro gamer thinks about things the same as me! I must post because this makes me auto right and my whining legit!!!!!11!!"
Then alter the original poster goes: chill out bros.. I was just frustrated. But the thread goes on.
Agree in some points. I was b-/b in broodwar and now I lose many games vs c- noobs with stupid all ins that are hard to scout... In BW a superior player would rarely drop games to a weaker player but in sc2 there are too many cheesy things to be aware of. Oh, that and the fact that cheesing involves no micro. At least in broodwar if you wanted to win with 2 gate proxy you had to micro your zealots. All I see in sc2 is 4 gates + void rays and attack move without even looking or proxy reapers or baneling bust. All of these require really little skill.
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.
Actually, 144 units are allowed to be in the same group. 6 * 3 * 8, because there is a maximum of six tabs.
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.
People need to really redefine the word "skill" "I'm 100% more skilled than this guy , but I lost to him. This game sucks, I'm gonna go back to that game I started playing 12 years ago cos it takes more skill."
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.
Have you played broodwar? DT's, cannon rushes, vultures, dark swarm, plaguu, storms, and the list goes on and on!
All of these units are "gimmicky" and "overpowered", but thats what created such a dynamic in the game, and allowed players to comeback from situations which they were not favored in.
The difference really is the lack of larger, more macro based maps, that make a huge impact on the game.
Not having the features he listed such as MBS and automining is what 1% of the population of SC2 players want... there's really no motivation for Blizzard to NOT implement these features since the vast majority of their audience actually EXPECT these in a game made in 2010. How many players can be considered to be 'pro' and get paid to play? 200? Now how many players play the game for the sake of having fun? The other 99.5%.
SC2 is not SC1 with updated graphics, nor should it ever be.
i have to agree with some of his points. SC2 at this time has much more reliance upon gimmicks and less upon mechanics which has been a major downer for me. the game is still evolving though and it's too early to call it trash and quit. early brood war was about one base play or cheese and it took many years to reach the mechanical play of today.
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.
Have you played broodwar? DT's, cannon rushes, vultures, dark swarm, plaguu, storms, and the list goes on and on!
All of these units are "gimmicky" and "overpowered", but thats what created such a dynamic in the game, and allowed players to comeback from situations which they were not favored in.
The difference really is the lack of larger, more macro based maps, that make a huge impact on the game.
I have played BW, since way back in the day with NTT actually. BW definitely had cheese too, but vultures, dark swarm, plague and storms were not cheese, they were absolutely necessary in order to be on equal ground with your opponent. Terran in SC2 could completely go without reapers, cloaked banshees, and salvageable bunkers and still do just as well even at the highest levels. Protoss could do without void rays so early as well, as they do have a purpose other than cheese, which is to be effective against capital ships and other such late game units, but at their current tech level they just turn into a cheesy option.
While BW had cheese two, there weren't as many cheese options, and they typically required at least a decent level of skill and micro to pull off against a player of equal or greater skill.
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
The game is just not demanding enough mechanically. It's just gimmicks upon gimmicks upon gimmicks. Maps are horrendous, balance is non existent, gameplay is straightjacketed, and monkeys can be trained to execute some of these build orders. 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. From Brood War to this is like going from F1 to a go-kart.
I gave the game an honest chance, but it's trash, sorry to say. Gave a bunch of free wins in my last 10 or so games. Might do some more insta f10-n'ing should I feel generous. If anyone poor needs an account, you can have this one as soon as Blizzard allows the free name change.
Noobs won't understand my issues with the game because they're noobs, c'est la vie.
YOU TELL THEM NTT ! THAT RIGHT THERE IS MY BOOOOIIII !! bw for life (we should really make a club guys , with a clever name too)
no matter how good or knowladgable you are there is no reason to burn bridges generalise population and bilittle a game that a large amount of people enjoy .
i hope NTT will have a fun time/success if he decide to go back to the bw, or if he will attempt sc2 again , i wish him goodluck and hope to see innovating games from him .
as a guy that moved from a game or two to a sequal i know how hard it can be , the only free advice is in order to adapt you need to consider yourself a (relativly) n00b and have an open mind to adapt.
about SC2 i think GSL and the subscribers talk for themself , personnaly i belive it will have a great future , and i can't wait
and please bw / sc2 people lets not fight and laught at wow people together !
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.
Have you played broodwar? DT's, cannon rushes, vultures, dark swarm, plaguu, storms, and the list goes on and on!
All of these units are "gimmicky" and "overpowered", but thats what created such a dynamic in the game, and allowed players to comeback from situations which they were not favored in.
The difference really is the lack of larger, more macro based maps, that make a huge impact on the game.
The last 4 of your list had a big difference in they were actually skillful to use and not gimmicky strategies at all. I'm not a fan of DT's (though sair/dt is pretty skilled), but it feels like a lot of strategies are similar in effectiveness to DT's in that it works and you win or they defend it and you don't with little skill actually involved.
ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
On October 07 2010 06:02 Perscienter wrote: ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Well... he is kinda right about the build-order roulette thing. I feel like the pre-scouting build orders impact the flow of the game too dramatically.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Hey Tyler, do you think that the gimmicks in the game (SC2) are too powerful or diverse? Do you feel like you can reliably defeat a weaker opponent, despite anything they throw at you? Thanks.
His game vs Socke on Steppes of War was the epitome of someone who has no class. He turtles up and goes Battlecruisers, and then when he is winning he tells Socke this strategy doesn't work 99% of the time and it is bullshit that Terran can't do anything against a Protoss mid-game as Socke was getting raped. You really think someone who made an impact on the former game 11 years ago would have matured at least a little, but guess not.
He can go flip burgers and think his opinion still matters to anyone. This topic pisses me off because it is obvious he loves the attention he gets, positive or negative. Don't give notoriety to immature nooby assholes.
On October 07 2010 06:02 Perscienter wrote: ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Tyler: A voice of reason in a thread full of people just typing whatever comes into their brain and hitting post. It seems like a lot of experienced SC1 players like Tyler and Day9 are taking the wait and see approach to SC2. True, there are some NTTs, but I think there are far more Tylers and Day9s who prefer to wait for the game to develop before calling out "imbalanced" or "broken" or "not enough skill." Day9's right, Blizzard has a long track record of making sure that their RTS games can sustain competitive play at the highest level.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Hey Tyler, do you think that the gimmicks in the game (SC2) are too powerful or diverse? Do you feel like you can reliably defeat a weaker opponent, despite anything they throw at you? Thanks.
I feel pretty good about PvT and PvZ. PvP is still a bit tough. Of course I still lose a lot of PvT's and PvZ's but I always feel like I can point out the exact mistakes that caused the loss. So in other words, if I'm playing my best, yeah I can stop all the gimmicks. But that's not the end of it. People get better and I'm sure the way I'm playing right now would lose to most of the all-ins that people will be doing 2 years from now. So it'll go back and forth. But the important thing is that I think that a player who is superior in the right ways can indeed win most of the time.
On October 07 2010 06:02 Perscienter wrote: ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Tyler: A voice of reason in a thread full of people just typing whatever comes into their brain and hitting post. It seems like a lot of experienced SC1 players like Tyler and Day9 are taking the wait and see approach to SC2. True, there are some NTTs, but I think there are far more Tylers and Day9s who prefer to wait for the game to develop before calling out "imbalanced" or "broken" or "not enough skill." Day9's right, Blizzard has a long track record of making sure that their RTS games can sustain competitive play at the highest level.
I agree with you except about Blizzard. I mean really what did Blizzard do to help sustain competitive play? BW was a happy accident in how well it turned out, and i hope they can replicate it. But to have full faith in them and claim thats a long track record, well i'm not so sure about that. They have already shown in numerous ways that they are either ignorant of competitive gamers desires or they simply are ignoring and would rather focus on issues pertaining to the casual players.
On October 07 2010 06:02 Perscienter wrote: ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Tyler: A voice of reason in a thread full of people just typing whatever comes into their brain and hitting post. It seems like a lot of experienced SC1 players like Tyler and Day9 are taking the wait and see approach to SC2. True, there are some NTTs, but I think there are far more Tylers and Day9s who prefer to wait for the game to develop before calling out "imbalanced" or "broken" or "not enough skill." Day9's right, Blizzard has a long track record of making sure that their RTS games can sustain competitive play at the highest level.
I agree with you except about Blizzard. I mean really what did Blizzard do to help sustain competitive play? BW was a happy accident in how well it turned out, and i hope they can replicate it. But to have full faith in them and claim thats a long track record, well i'm not so sure about that. They have already shown in numerous ways that they are either ignorant of competitive gamers desires or they simply are ignoring and would rather focus on issues pertaining to the casual players.
Day9 always cites the huge differences in competitive play between Starcraft 1 and Brood War as well as between Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne. Did they still have patches after the expansions? Yes, but the expansions changed the way the games worked enough to sustain a healthy esports scene. Blizzard still has two expansions to hammer out the problems in competitive play for SC2.
On October 07 2010 06:02 Perscienter wrote: ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Tyler: A voice of reason in a thread full of people just typing whatever comes into their brain and hitting post. It seems like a lot of experienced SC1 players like Tyler and Day9 are taking the wait and see approach to SC2. True, there are some NTTs, but I think there are far more Tylers and Day9s who prefer to wait for the game to develop before calling out "imbalanced" or "broken" or "not enough skill." Day9's right, Blizzard has a long track record of making sure that their RTS games can sustain competitive play at the highest level.
I agree with you except about Blizzard. I mean really what did Blizzard do to help sustain competitive play? BW was a happy accident in how well it turned out, and i hope they can replicate it. But to have full faith in them and claim thats a long track record, well i'm not so sure about that. They have already shown in numerous ways that they are either ignorant of competitive gamers desires or they simply are ignoring and would rather focus on issues pertaining to the casual players.
Day9 always cites the huge differences in competitive play between Starcraft 1 and Brood War as well as between Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne. Did they still have patches after the expansions? Yes, but the expansions changed the way the games worked enough to sustain a healthy esports scene. Blizzard still has two expansions to hammer out the problems in competitive play for SC2.
Not just gameplay wise though, i mean for Bnet 2 as well. Although i think it is pretty irresponsible to put out a balance patch in the middle of a $100k+ tournament that THEY probably put a lot of money towards.
On October 07 2010 06:55 infinity2k9 wrote: Not just gameplay wise though, i mean for Bnet 2 as well. Although i think it is pretty irresponsible to put out a balance patch in the middle of a $100k+ tournament that THEY probably put a lot of money towards.
I'm pretty sure the $180M+ shelled out by people who bought the game trumps the potential $87K of 16 Korean dudes.
On October 07 2010 06:02 Perscienter wrote: ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Tyler: A voice of reason in a thread full of people just typing whatever comes into their brain and hitting post. It seems like a lot of experienced SC1 players like Tyler and Day9 are taking the wait and see approach to SC2. True, there are some NTTs, but I think there are far more Tylers and Day9s who prefer to wait for the game to develop before calling out "imbalanced" or "broken" or "not enough skill." Day9's right, Blizzard has a long track record of making sure that their RTS games can sustain competitive play at the highest level.
I agree with you except about Blizzard. I mean really what did Blizzard do to help sustain competitive play? BW was a happy accident in how well it turned out, and i hope they can replicate it. But to have full faith in them and claim thats a long track record, well i'm not so sure about that. They have already shown in numerous ways that they are either ignorant of competitive gamers desires or they simply are ignoring and would rather focus on issues pertaining to the casual players.
Day9 always cites the huge differences in competitive play between Starcraft 1 and Brood War as well as between Reign of Chaos and Frozen Throne. Did they still have patches after the expansions? Yes, but the expansions changed the way the games worked enough to sustain a healthy esports scene. Blizzard still has two expansions to hammer out the problems in competitive play for SC2.
Not just gameplay wise though, i mean for Bnet 2 as well. Although i think it is pretty irresponsible to put out a balance patch in the middle of a $100k+ tournament that THEY probably put a lot of money towards.
So would you rather have a player win and then right after the tournament a balance patch comes that was needed and would have changed the outcome of the tourney? It can be argued both ways. Neither side is 100% right in my opinion.
On October 07 2010 06:02 Perscienter wrote: ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
On October 07 2010 06:55 infinity2k9 wrote: Not just gameplay wise though, i mean for Bnet 2 as well. Although i think it is pretty irresponsible to put out a balance patch in the middle of a $100k+ tournament that THEY probably put a lot of money towards.
I'm pretty sure the $180M+ shelled out by people who bought the game trumps the potential $87K of 16 Korean dudes.
Esports is a qualitative benefit, not a quantitative one and they both bring huge benefits. However, its not possible to cater fully to both. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. If you think about it, starcraft in korea is a major factor for SC2's status as an esport and its commercial sales. You can't look at it in terms of numbers.
didnt read all the replies but what NTT said was spot on and true.
when i was playing war3 its all about micro and skills. in sc2 , its not.. its cheese, you cant scout fast enough because maps are too small and its too imbalance, so its just like rock paper scissor ( random bo.. like lucky draw) and A ground to win seriously..
in war3 and sc people that are defenitely more noob than you wont be able to beat you but in sc2? High chance, huge chance. especially if your a zerg. protoss is better cause theyre a more solid race while zerg will need to have precise timing which mostly fails thanks to failmap , fail mechanics.
On October 07 2010 07:25 starcraft911 wrote: NTT hasnt been relevant for 10+ years.
This.
Yet it appears that anyone notorious, be it now or in the past, rehashing the same comments concerning the current state of SC2 that have been spewed since the early days of beta are still considered noteworthy enough to generate 30 page threads. Every.damn.time.
There should be a new section on these boards called the Whine Cellar so anybody can rage to their hearts content, there, and nowhere else.
On October 07 2010 07:57 FatHuntresS wrote: didnt read all the replies but what NTT said was spot on and true.
when i was playing war3 its all about micro and skills. in sc2 , its not.. its cheese, you cant scout fast enough because maps are too small and its too imbalance, so its just like rock paper scissor ( random bo.. like lucky draw) and A ground to win seriously..
in war3 and sc people that are defenitely more noob than you wont be able to beat you but in sc2? High chance, huge chance. especially if your a zerg. protoss is better cause theyre a more solid race while zerg will need to have precise timing which mostly fails thanks to failmap , fail mechanics.
and yea, noobs wont understand..
Sounds like you're bringing up an issue with maps, which just about everyone agrees with.
Huh.. well good luck with whatever else he plans to do. I mean if you can't have fun with Starcraft 2 and you don't like it I guess no one is forcing you to play it. I like the game, the games are getting more and more awesome as time goes on and I' for one can't wait for things like the 2nd gsl to get started.
While not every GSL game was amazing epic many of them where quite entertaining and I feel the results speak to the nature that for all the complaints the game is still very much changing and adapting and will continue to do so. I look to the players in that tournament to show us just how little we've actually figured out.
On October 07 2010 06:02 Perscienter wrote: ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Scbw and Sc2 are not different courts, but different games, although of the same lineage. Due to everyone, including the pros, just focusing on one race (playing different races isn't required by the associations), the fitting equivalent to courts would be the maps. Tennis hasn't been severely overhauled during the last ten years, but you could argue about the modern equipment in sports.
Not only maps dude.. its just the way the game was designed. The maps right now is an advantage to the toss and terran. i dont want to whine in this thread, lets just say , why am i losing to people that i would have easily thrashed them in war3? i dont get it. they are thrash. and im losing to them. obviously if the game was going on for more than 15 minutes, with my macro and micro i would have thrash them but then again, i cant even go pass 7 minutes because of some rock paper scissors BO in some small shitty map where you can hide every single building in every fucking corner. lets just see how the game evolves and see how reactive people can get. lets wait till terran start hiding buildings and trick the zerg with dual starport. Lets wait till jaedongs 500 apm and marine will be sliding with machine gun attack. My point is, The game is shitty compared to war3 and bw.
The Mechanics of the game itself, is an advantage to the terran, The Marine move+hit trick like in dota. If you power micro u can have MUCH MUCH more advantage.. right now terran just afk and marine shoot, in the future u'll see more crazy marine style. what can zerglings do then, its a ceiling you can reach. just imagine that everyone having 500 apm, zerg can fast spread creep like crazy, but thats about the only advantage. we're talking bout meta-game here.
Terran just has much more potential to grow in terms of variety and diversity of strategies to pull off, and marines are the greatest asset to mix into them, just because the hit move can be abused perfectly in the near future. lets not go off topic, like i said the mechanics itself is just.. fucked up.
Its frustrating because noobs are beating pros, and they think they are pro. I totally understand NTT frustration. back then in war3 , these noobs were irrelevant because my micro was superior. in sc2.. my micro cannot be utilized much. i dont know why. I transferred my skill to macro but it stills boils down to rock paper scissors which pisses me off.
example would be get beaten by 1 void ray, 1 thor, 1 siege tank, 1 banshee. <-- most frustrating crap ever . .. like oh? GG , wrong bo ! you got me there. its like tic tac toe. u get it, its not based on skill -___-
guys you all keep going on about how the game will evolve and stuffs like that, its different in sc2. there will be a limit of what pros can do unlike sc1..
we cant dodge lurkers in sc2, we cant abuse muta groupings in sc2.. the programming has gotten so advance that things are really too systematic that its not fun no more =/ unless they implement it themselves. like magicbox.
NTT is just making himself sound like a giant baby saying this. IMO i think someone just needs to give him a tissue to wipe his tears away because SC2 is evolving beyond old players like NTT
it just seems to me that since all these newb friendly features have been added, the variance has been greatly increased, I don't think SC2 will ever be as awesome as broodwar was but it's still a decent game
On October 07 2010 06:02 Perscienter wrote: ntt Terran Region race rank #72 (0.60% of 12,097, 99th percentile)
He belongs to the best percentile of players and Terrans on the NA server in the diamond league. Roughly 8% of the players on NA play in diamond. I know, it has a bad reputation, but if you criticize him for being a bad player, you really have to think about your demands.
I don't think it really matters for this discussion either way. The only reason anyone listens to him is because of what he did in SC1. In SC2 he's nothing, despite being in 99th percentile. Anyway, it's possible to tell differences in skill at elite levels.
If you watched Tennis and all games were played on hard courts, then someone introduced clay courts, and some guy who was top 10 on hard courts for a brief time, who is now top 100 at clay courts, goes off about how the clay courts don't properly emphasize the skills that Tennis ought to emphasize, then everyone would just be like "lol what". It's something like that imo. Some other smart and knowledgeable people have other opinions but it's too early to say either way.
Scbw and Sc2 are not different courts, but different games, although of the same lineage. Due to everyone, including the pros, just focusing on one race (playing different races isn't required by the associations), the fitting equivalent to courts would be the maps. Tennis hasn't been severely overhauled during the last ten years, but you could argue about the modern equipment in sports.
This is totally missing the point of putting NTT in proper perspective. Every analogy has disanalogies but they're relevant only if they affect the point being made.
But in response to the OP, does this NTT guy have any authority whatsoever? He just sounds like some no-name whiner, to be honest, and his arguments aren't even valid.
Sure, automine and MBS make the game easier. But reactors, voidrays, stim (yeah... stimpack wasn't in the original SC or anything...) and blink are perfectly valid things in the game. It's not like we're pretending that the game is perfect or perfectly balanced (it's still a fetus, for cryin' out loud!), but we don't see the pros playing for two seconds and then leaving the game forever because it's "too gimicky". It's different than SC1 because it would be stupid to re-sell the exact same game with the exact same EVERYTHING with only slightly better graphics.
I think he needs to grow up. After he becomes well known enough to be taken seriously.
On October 07 2010 07:25 starcraft911 wrote: NTT hasnt been relevant for 10+ years.
He was imo #1 in the world 00 (gorush was close tho) and that was 10years ago. He was really a top player 01 so I'd say you are wrong. Make it 7-8years and you'd be more correct.
Wow.. so many newschoolers. I feel pretty old that over half this thread has no idea who NTT is.
Anyways, I can completely agree with his entire statement. Everything he said is pretty accurate. But I mean, of course you can't compare two games that are a decade apart. SC2 is what it is and although I'm sure a lot of people are disappointed just like NTT, it doesn't mean it's a bad game. In time, hopefully the game will evolve into something better and not just being played because of the hype.
On October 07 2010 08:38 Eatme wrote: No wonder that I dont post as much here anymore.
Remind me to cry.
I know of NTT a little, and I followed the BW scene slowly at first then in a greater manner. I think you've got to give the deserved respect to the guy, as if boxer or flash said it tomorrow there would be an even bigger shitstorm.
After playing so much starcraft 2, reading his comments did make me think again about BW, and long for some of the simpler, more skill necessary gameplay.
It's obviously just an outburst though as his third post clears most of it up. Still a big decision if he really does quit entirely.
On October 07 2010 08:11 FatHuntresS wrote: Not only maps dude.. its just the way the game was designed. The maps right now is an advantage to the toss and terran. i dont want to whine in this thread, lets just say , why am i losing to people that i would have easily thrashed them in war3? i dont get it. they are thrash. and im losing to them. obviously if the game was going on for more than 15 minutes, with my macro and micro i would have thrash them but then again, i cant even go pass 7 minutes because of some rock paper scissors BO in some small shitty map where you can hide every single building in every fucking corner. lets just see how the game evolves and see how reactive people can get. lets wait till terran start hiding buildings and trick the zerg with dual starport. Lets wait till jaedongs 500 apm and marine will be sliding with machine gun attack. My point is, The game is shitty compared to war3 and bw.
The Mechanics of the game itself, is an advantage to the terran, The Marine move+hit trick like in dota. If you power micro u can have MUCH MUCH more advantage.. right now terran just afk and marine shoot, in the future u'll see more crazy marine style. what can zerglings do then, its a ceiling you can reach. just imagine that everyone having 500 apm, zerg can fast spread creep like crazy, but thats about the only advantage. we're talking bout meta-game here.
Terran just has much more potential to grow in terms of variety and diversity of strategies to pull off, and marines are the greatest asset to mix into them, just because the hit move can be abused perfectly in the near future. lets not go off topic, like i said the mechanics itself is just.. fucked up.
Its frustrating because noobs are beating pros, and they think they are pro. I totally understand NTT frustration. back then in war3 , these noobs were irrelevant because my micro was superior. in sc2.. my micro cannot be utilized much. i dont know why. I transferred my skill to macro but it stills boils down to rock paper scissors which pisses me off.
example would be get beaten by 1 void ray, 1 thor, 1 siege tank, 1 banshee. <-- most frustrating crap ever . .. like oh? GG , wrong bo ! you got me there. its like tic tac toe. u get it, its not based on skill -___-
guys you all keep going on about how the game will evolve and stuffs like that, its different in sc2. there will be a limit of what pros can do unlike sc1..
we cant dodge lurkers in sc2, we cant abuse muta groupings in sc2.. the programming has gotten so advance that things are really too systematic that its not fun no more =/ unless they implement it themselves. like magicbox.
It's posts like these that make me smile about how much certain people hate it when "noobs" (sometimes called people with lives) can play a game and not suck.
The best example i can bring up (again) is chess.
In chess, "noobs" (anyone not a grandmaster) can play the first 20 moves perfectly. And often good players will make 0 mistakes during a game. The difference between a "grandmaster" and a "good player" can be 1-2 different choices. The game is very very subtle. Even Me (rated around 1400 in chess) can play a guy who i am supposed to lose to 95% of the time (rated 2000) and still have an enjoyable and tough game.
Now starcraft 2 isn't as subtle and obviously noobs cant yet handle playing the first 30% of a game perfectly and pros can't yet "play perfectly". Yes, sc2 might require less mechanical skill than scbw or whatever, but with the counter system (which is a huge huge huge change, and really makes it a completely different game), making mistakes about building the wrong unit are significantly more costly. It means more mind games, more cheese, more allin intially, however, once players have the tools to scout properly, know when and how to scout, knowing how to gain the "initiative" (Make a lot of sentries forcing your opponent to go muta, then make a lot of blink stalkers for example), and subtle things like forcing your opponent to build 1 extra turrent, will be the difference in high level games, yet at the same time, with the counter system, you can't blindy rush into a single strategy and hope your opponent reacts how you want (which is why cheese is so strong, because people don't scout correctly...i know i dont).
If you want twitchy, fast hand motion stuff, there are games like ssbm, or scbw or halo3. If you want pure mental games, watch chess. If you want to watch something in between with a little bit of both, watch sc2. That's all i have to say.
I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by.
Don't worry guys, there are still people who thinks wc2 is a better than Starcraft. Although his point is valid since his view of Starcraft is based on the original and early stages of Starcraft. It's a pity these people had not experienced what came after 'Starcraft'. It will be sad to see history being repeated again.
On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote: I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by.
You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak.
SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification.
NTT have more skills that 95% post in here and have more deep knowledge of RTS Games to. He achievement things that you kids only dream at night...He is not so random noob. Was not the best way to leave but well h appends.
Off topic: I love teamliquid and i learn alot in bw skills and sc2 skills (not so much ofc ^_^) and i improve english imo. (But is bad still) But this is becoming like gosugamers comments like 1/2 ago (i dont know now tho).
On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote: I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by.
You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak.
SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification.
It didn't.
What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted.
Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys.
On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote: I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by.
You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak.
SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification.
It didn't.
What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted.
Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys.
Are you trying to troll me or something? What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history?
On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote: I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by.
You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak.
SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification.
It didn't.
What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted.
Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys.
Are you trying to troll me or something? What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history?
Obviously nothing, as the three races are an unalterable dynamic of BW/SC2. I wasn't agreeing with him, I was just pointing out that just because you see nothing of similar depth was added, doesn't mean that's true.
On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote: I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by.
You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak.
SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification.
It didn't.
What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted.
Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys.
Are you trying to troll me or something? What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history?
Obviously nothing, as the three races are an unalterable dynamic of BW/SC2. I wasn't agreeing with him, I was just pointing out that just because you see nothing of similar depth was added, doesn't mean that's true.
Yes, it does. What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history?
In fact, what innovative or complex mechanic was added in Starcraft 2 at all? The most we got were some nice abilities like warping in. He would call them gimmicky, but even if they were "neat" and "original", they would still be relatively minor compared to what BW gave us.
On October 07 2010 09:33 Macavity wrote: I probably sounded like NTT when Starcraft 1 came out. I played Warcraft 2 competitively, and I was not initially happy with Starcraft. The big 'thing' with Starcraft was that 'there are three races', and I thought that was gimmicky. Starcraft 1 felt backwards to me from Warcraft 2 in the following ways:
-No naval combat. While Warcraft 2 may only have had two races, it did have three resources of gold, lumber, and oil. Oil was important for naval warfare and was a dimension to the game that Starcraft lacks (even Warcraft 3 didn't implement it properly). Back then, many 'noobs' hated water maps because they couldn't easily 'cheese' because whoever controlled the water had map control. It was an additional plane of combat that made things more interesting tactically.
-In Warcraft 2, you could set options of how high resources you wanted for the map (something lacking in every Blizzard RTS game since). The only 'real' way to play was on 'low resources'. This forced people to expand, to focus more on keeping their current units alive rather than do mass production and strip mining. I was disappointed it wasn't in Starcraft. I also think Starcraft 2 needs low resource maps because this would put an abrupt end to 'one base play' but also doing crazy macro won't automatically win you the game (because you will run out of resources faster).
-Vespene was a poor replacement for lumber. What was interesting about lumber was that the map would change throughout the game. Your walled off area might suddenly become vulnerable if your peasants cleared a hole in the forest.
-I hated Battle. Net then in the same way SC1 players hate Bnet 2.0.
So why am I saying this? I've come to realize that at a certain age and time in our lives will be the 'golden age' of whatever game we play. Most of the SC 1 crazy fans actually grew up with SC 1. But those who were of age of Warcraft 2 will call that their game. And the young ones today will grow up with SC 2, and they will call that their game. Video games are a young person's hobby after all. (Once you have kids, your game playing skills go out the window for whatever reason.)
Anyone saying Starcraft 2 is a radical change from Starcraft 1 doesn't know what they are saying. A radical change is Warcraft 3 from Warcraft 2 (very different type of gameplay). Starcraft 2 is very much similar to Starcraft despite what some people say. However, the 'big changes' is that the game is in 3d, has better interface and unit pathing, and all the bells and whistles a game released in 2010 would have compared to Starcraft released over a decade ago.
One major difference between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 is that the competitive scene of SC1 did not kick up until much later. When Starcraft 1 was released, there was TONS of competition in the RTS genre. Age of Empires. Command and Conquer. Total Annihilation. Dark Reign. And more and more coming out. Today, the RTS genre has fizzled out and Starcraft 2 has little to no competition in the traditional RTS area.
Unlike SC1, the competitive scene in SC2 is ramping up faster. Since there is no competition in RTS right now, all the people who were playing other RTSes back a decade ago are now playing SC 2. The situation is not that a 'noob' can beat a 'pro player' with a crazy build as they think. The situation is that there is much more competition than ever before. Who cares if a Korean is practicing 12 hours a day? More people than ever in the West are doing so now as well.
Saying the mechanics of SC2 is 'less' than SC1 is ridiculous because it ignores one big change SC2 did from SC1: game speed is much faster. SC 2 is a much faster game than SC 1 which I think throws the 'less mechanics' out the window. Blizzard placed the current game speed as a joke during development, but it became the final game speed setting.
I can't say whether NTT is disappointed in SC 2 the same way how older people, like myself, were disappointed in SC 1, or whether that there is much more competition today than there was in SC 1 (giving people who think they are 'pro' a run for their money). But one thing I am sure about is that it isn't the game he is complaining about. SC 2 is well done and FAR better made than SC 1 at this point in its life history. He is projecting some other frustration onto the game itself. Most SC 1 players will probably begin sounding like NTT as they discover that time is passing them by.
You're right. SC1 did simplify and remove many features that were present in WC3. But it also added an equal amount of features, including a revamped racial system that was a world first in RTS history, an increased supply cap, and a complete change in gameplay dynamic, and new ability options like cloak.
SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification.
It didn't.
What you call a "revamped racial system that was world first in RTS history" is called "gimmicky" by the guy you quoted.
Just because you think nothing of equal gameplay depth was added doesn't mean someone else believes so. Potatoes, potatoes guys.
Are you trying to troll me or something? What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history?
Obviously nothing, as the three races are an unalterable dynamic of BW/SC2. I wasn't agreeing with him, I was just pointing out that just because you see nothing of similar depth was added, doesn't mean that's true.
Yes, it does. What mechanic in Starcraft would match an equal level of gameplay depth comparable to the introduction of three distinctive races for the first time in RTS history?
In fact, what innovative or complex mechanic was added in Starcraft 2 at all? The most we got were some nice abilities like warping in. He would call them gimmicky, but even if they were "neat" and "original", they would still be relatively minor compared to what BW gave us.
The new abilities like Contaminate, Force Field etc., new creep use, which has started to come out from Idra etc., Transfusion, Chrono Boost. Those abilities will be fun to watch when people figure out cute tricks for them.
The new mechanics that simplified stuff like mineral rallying, MBS are necessary in order to gain new customers. While it "dumbs" down the mechanics, it lets people worry about the other stuff. NTT doesn't like the game and that's completely fine. What's not OK is parading around acting like BW is that much superior.
Sorry for the low post count, but I speak as someone who is in the process of making a small game company, and I have had three years to watch SC2's development from alpha, to launch.
SC2 rejected a demanding U.I in favor of fundamentally accessible mechanics. While it is easier to macro in SC2, mules, supply drops, Chronoboost, and Larva Injection offered many ways to fall behind your opponent. Zerg is especially difficult to keep momentum on multiple bases. Chronoboost is a very very strong mechanic because of the three potential uses it has. Miss using Chronoboosts cost people games all the time at lower levels, and create interesting timing windows for better players.
Warp In is harder to defend, however, the ability to create instant reinforcements that can be sniped during construction do add a good layer to player interactions. Pylons being more fragile than their BW counterparts make for good map control battles where the P makes a push, falters, then has to dig their heels in to keep their forward pylon intact. This is good for the spectator and player aspect of the game. Skill also is tied to Warp In in that you can't que units with Warp Gates, giving an ever increasing advantage to players who do not falter in their Warp Gate management of the course of a long game.
Individual units like the Collosus and Pheonix offer increased micro potential. While many players are content to mass and A move to victory, Collosi require good positioning to maximize damage between shots, especially after their damage retooling in the beta. -Collosi are also very expensive and are very vulnerable, allowing for good snipe attempts on the defending player's part. Further, there is absolutely 0 random factor in the Thermal sweep, unlike the lovable Reaver, while the spectator value was wonderful, it was a crap shoot, and did step on the toes of what was otherwise a very skill intensive strat. -Phoenix are an excellent replacement of the Corsair, offering the same roll AA support. The grav ability is strong from a design perspective due to the fact that it has a short channel duration, and has enough range to make positioning matter. The fact that it can fire while moving gives many players an opportunity to maximize damage while maintaining speed. The idea is sound.
While Zerg may or may not be underpowered, it is less developed than T or P. This doesn't stop it from being very hard to play. While I dislike the fact that it is very hard to be aggressive with a traditionally aggressive race, I can't deny the value or skill it takes to aggressively spread creep without falling behind.
Units like the Roach and the Infestor are still not fully utilized Burrow Micro with the Roach will eventually be used by players with sufficient APM who can maintain a high level of micro. Keeping units alive to maximize damage is a core concept in BW, and is in no way gimmicky. The ability to pull wounded burrowed Roaches back may also have interesting applications.
The Infestor is really starting to shine as worthy and ultimately more useful successor to the BW Queen. For all of the hate NP gets, it is much better than Spawn Broodlings at taking out high priority targets, and its applications are much broader and given that you are now controlling a new unit, maximizing the damage or abilities from that unit require additional APM. Much more than SB ever did. Fungal Growth requires more careful placement due to its smaller radius, and is actually applicable for worker harras as it not only delays mining, but will kill workers with repeated uses. Infested Terran finally is being used for burrow harras and an answer to Dropship play. Using 2 abilities in tandem to take out a unit is acceptably apm intensive.
Do the Zerg need a T3 caster like in BW? In time, possibly, but let's appreciate the fact that this time around, Z gets a T2 caster that doesn't have to be hid for 50 seconds after spawning to influence the game.
NTT is right that Starcraft Broodwar required more skill than Starcraft 2.
No, NTT didn't master Starcraft 2. He wasn't a top tournament player by any means. And if you studied his replays, I'm sure you would find plenty of mistakes. But I think NTT saw Starcraft 2 would not let him express his skills in the way he wanted to express them, became frustrated, and dashed off a post which made him sound a little immature.
In Starcraft Broodwar, for example, managing 4 bases was an extreme challenge. So much so that players were uncomfortable expanding that many times. It is mentally taxing to do the plethora of things required to manage 4 bases . And many players, instead of trying to step out of their multi-tasking comfort zone, simply opted to pump out units from two bases and do what was essentially a two-base all-in (as a kind of unrelated note, if you want to increase your skill, understand that you can two-base, and even three-base, all-in, and stop doing it).
NTT liked expanding everywhering and playing in that multi-tasking chaos. Now, while managing 4 bases (or 3 bases, or even 2) in Starcraft 2 is by no means easy, it's not nearly as intimidating as before. And I think NTT wasn't happy with that. So he quit. Fine with me. The truth is, I hope that in patches, or in the expansions, Blizzard either adds more "macro mechanics," (e.g., chrono boost, spawn larva, calldown mule), or removes some of the user interface simplifications (e.g., multiple building selection, unlimited unit groups, and automine). If they don't, I'll probably leave too. But I don't understand the game fully yet, and there is a chance that Blizzard might make some good changes, so I might as well wait it out and enjoy the rather fun game.
I was sifting through his battle.net posts and discovered this gem of a topic. He goes into detail on why many units are imbalanced, why their imbalances should be/can't be fixed, and what this means to the overall balance of the game. He plays T and disses a lot of Z and P units so it's kind of disproportionate, and i don't necessarily agree with many of his proposed fixes, but the analysis is still worth a read.
I think cool's play was amazing and his opponent's was uninspiring for a finals, but imo what NTT says about the TvZ matchup is shockingly accurate and proven to a fine point in the finals.
the future of sc2 is perfectly fine, many good players say it is a good game. If people like tester accept it then who is someone such as NTT to say otherwise, clearly he just couldn't become good @ it so he rage-quit hard.
I was sifting through his battle.net posts and discovered this gem of a topic. He goes into detail on why many units are imbalanced, why their imbalances should be/can't be fixed, and what this means to the overall balance of the game. He plays T and disses a lot of Z and P units so it's kind of disproportionate, and i don't necessarily agree with many of his proposed fixes, but the analysis is still worth a read.
I think cool's play was amazing and his opponent's was uninspiring for a finals, but imo what NTT says about the TvZ matchup is shockingly accurate and proven to a fine point in the finals.
Some of the things he says in that post are utterly absurd. Anyone who reads that will likely see that he's way off the mark on a number of points and is really just coming across as someone who either a) genuinely doesn't like the game, b) can't adapt to it, or c) is living in the past.
Example:
Ultralisks: Once present, Terran can no longer attack with ground forces. These things are so ridiculously, stupidly, offensively effective with their sick sick sick splash damage and armor, that no Terran army composition can effectively deal with them.
Ummm... seriously? When were Ultras ever that overpowered? Christ, I rembmer a game between Idra and Drewbie (if I recall correctly) where Drewbie was literally toying with Idra's Ultras for at least half a game. Drewbie eventually lost but it was because he ran out of cash. He killed hundreds of resources more in Ultras than he lost - it was a joke. That game was just a few days prior to NTTs post about Ultras being completely overpowered, and seriously, when has anyone thought Ultras were so strong that Terran had no solution to them?
Another Example:
Reapers: Whoever designed this unit is a silly, silly person. It is unbalancable. Whatever changes end up being made (if any) to this unit, it will end up either useless or overpowered. It is currently far too strong against Zerg, and epically useless against Protoss and Terran with the possible exception of one for scouting/harrassment (well designed!).
So we've been through the whole "OMG Reapers are too strong!" phase. People were screaming for them to be nerfed. Personally, I thought the nerf wasn't required - rather more time was needed for counters to develop (as Idra showed us in his games vs. Morrow; you can get away from Roach vs. Reaper and get Mutas to cripple the Terran before Marauders). Still, now they've been nerfed and things aren't so bad, are they? It looks like they may *gasp!* actually be balanced. Also, since when did anyone ever consider Reapers useless against Protoss? And for the record, they're great for scouting - yes, they are well-designed.
So here are two great examples of the knee-jerk reaction we're talking about for near 30-pages in this thread.
If the guy doesn't like the game, so be it; but my Christ, reading his posts, he's clearly out-of-touch with how this game plays - or maybe he's just too wrapped up in the past. Who knows. Regardless, I won't be putting much stock into his tirades.
SC2 is good. I loved SC and BW; but we can't keep complaining about MBS and auto-mining. So far as I know, those weren't part of SC or BW on purpose, they're products of poor design. There are two expansions and numerous patches coming for SC2 (they were patching vanilla for years), so hang in there, enjoy it, and put the free time MBS and auto-mining gives you into micro, tactics, multi-pronged attacks, larva, MULES, CBs, etc. etc.
There is this phenomenon in poker. I don't know the name of it but it goes something like this.
A lot of people used to think Poker was all about luck. Not completely absent of skill, but heavily based on luck. It was thought to be so luck-based that it was not considered "sport" in any sense of the word.
It didn't matter what logical arguments you presented. It just didn't make sense to people.
But then something happened: the same people kept making it to the final few tables in major tournaments. Over and over and over and over again. So much so that it became obvious to everyone that Poker is a skill-based game. Most people can't tell you why this is, but they know it to be true.
...
The same people keep making it far in SC2 tournaments. NTT doesn't know why. Most people on this forum don't know why. But its pretty obvious that this game isn't a coin flip of build orders.
Haha NTT provides good drama. I enjoyed a lot of his BW mass expo and drops games but don't really get his SC2 style at all. Maybe he's just getting too old for the scene and wants to go out with a bang of drama.
I was actually rewatching the idra v morrow game when i saw Mjolnir's post and you couldn't be more wrong about the ultras in it. Morrow's army lost straight up to the ultras twice in a row and the only reason he didn't die outright was because he had 4 turrets + 2-4 bunkers + Planetary fortresses at every one of his expos. Also, because ultras still did ram attack back then there was nothing idra could do against repaired PF's except mass expand. He only lost some of the later battles because kulas is a clusterfuck of a map and he kept having to fight in narrow places, but his mass expansions eventually payed off and brought him the win. In summary, the ultras won every battle they fought in open land but couldn't compete against PF bullshittery and the horribleness that is kulas.
I play P so i don't know how valid ultras typically are ZvT but this isn't the replay to show their failings.
Reapers are an easier thing to understand. I don't fully agree with NTT that they will become worthless but they're definately a niche unit that rarely sees any use past early game. Harassment and scouting are all it really has going for it and terran has equally effective alternatives for both.
Since I don't have an account there, I will make some comments here.
Darwin said “It's not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.”
Unfortunately it appears I am most unresponsive to change, as I can't seem to adapt to these new conditions. Mainly, I tend to lose more (a lot more) than one game in a million which seems unacceptable to me.
This has caused a degree of frustration, which expressed hyperbolically has created quite a stir in StarCraft II land. Perhaps I should express my opinions less condescendingly and without flavor to avoid all misunderstanding in the future. Be aware though, that I am not as emotionally invested as some of my rage-filled drama posts might suggest.
My sincere opinion about StarCraft II is that it's a decent game, well worth playing, but does not compare favorably to its predecessor. In time, it might. However unlikely this may seem at present.
Henceforth my trolling will be more controlled and less impactful, although always with a kernel of truth. More subtle if you will, like this post
On October 07 2010 11:36 -_- wrote: or removes some of the user interface simplifications (e.g., multiple building selection, unlimited unit groups, and automine). If they don't, I'll probably leave too. But I don't understand the game fully yet, and there is a chance that Blizzard might make some good changes, so I might as well wait it out and enjoy the rather fun game.
Now why would Bliz remove automine or multiple building selections? In my opinion, it makes the game easier and more accessible. Blizzard is making a game for a wide audience, they're not making a game for a niche ultra competitive pro scene. In fact, I think the simplified mechanics like that will bring professional games to a hire level than SC simply because once pro players reach the macro ceiling, games will become more micro and positional focused, which I think makes for a much more exciting game anyway. I'm not interested in the fact that joe schmo pro can remember to send every scv to mine with no delay, and I think it's just simply much better gameplay mechanics that you can rally workers to mine. I do think maybe unlimited unit groups could maybe be capped at 24, just because massing all of box + a isn't very satisfying for me, and winning games with more strategic unit placement of smaller groups is much more satisfying. But then again, you will never see a pro box + a. The unlimited unit group is for casual players. It makes the game much more fun for lower level players.
This is really a bummer for me personally. NTT is seriously the reason I got into competitive SCing. He's the reason I chose Terran on BW. I wanted to play just like him, I thought his gameplay was so unique, it was amazing how he beat top players with that extreme macro style.
Seriously NTT if you're reading this I hope you can reconsider and stay with SC2. I've already watched a few of your reps on SC2 and I'm STILL impressed. You brought that style to SC2 and still beat good players, you're the best to ever play Terran in my opinion.
SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification.
It didn't.
As someone mentioned earlier, it added a number of new mechanics, though it's impossible to say if it compensates for the simplifications. But why would it be necessary to completely compensate for simplification?
I think we can agree that even 400 APM BW pros don't play BW perfectly. In other words, to play a perfectly executed game would require some amount of APM beyond human ability. This means it could be possible that simplifying the more mundane mechanical tasks allows the player to reach that perfectly executed game.
Now, you clearly worry that if you simplify the game too much, too many players will hit that "skill cap." But there is absolutely no evidence that this will occur. None of the current SC2 pros, despite being former BW pros and having very high APM, can execute SC2 play perfectly. So at the very least, we do know that the skill cap isn't so low that any scrub can play competitively. Is it high enough to accommodate the APM advantage of current BW pros? Notwithstanding your bold assertions, this is impossible to say unless and until top tier players switch.
In my opinion, I think the skill cap is extraordinarily high, because the most optimal play would be to control each individual unit to get in optimal position, prevent overkilling, take advantage of range, speed, etc. And to control each worker so that less time is wasted searching for an available mineral patch. I'm probably missing many other optimal tasks. Regardless, I don't think it's humanly possible to play at that level. (I.e. imagine how unoptimal Jaedong or Flash would play if they couldn't group units at all.)
SC2 removed MBS, added automine, added smartcasting, and has unlimited selection caps. By the same logic, it should have added an equal amount of gameplay depth to compensate for mechanical simplification.
It didn't.
As someone mentioned earlier, it added a number of new mechanics, though it's impossible to say if it compensates for the simplifications. But why would it be necessary to completely compensate for simplification?
I think we can agree that even 400 APM BW pros don't play BW perfectly. In other words, to play a perfectly executed game would require some amount of APM beyond human ability. This means it could be possible that simplifying the more mundane mechanical tasks allows the player to reach that perfectly executed game.
Now, you clearly worry that if you simplify the game too much, too many players will hit that "skill cap." But there is absolutely no evidence that this will occur. None of the current SC2 pros, despite being former BW pros and having very high APM, can execute SC2 play perfectly. So at the very least, we do know that the skill cap isn't so low that any scrub can play competitively. Is it high enough to accommodate the APM advantage of current BW pros? Notwithstanding your bold assertions, this is impossible to say unless and until top tier players switch.
In my opinion, I think the skill cap is extraordinarily high, because the most optimal play would be to control each individual unit to get in optimal position, prevent overkilling, take advantage of range, speed, etc. And to control each worker so that less time is wasted searching for an available mineral patch. I'm probably missing many other optimal tasks. Regardless, I don't think it's humanly possible to play at that level. (I.e. imagine how unoptimal Jaedong or Flash would play if they couldn't group units at all.)
I think the problem is that your assuming that skill converts to reward similarly for both games. Think about Reward /porpto ln{skill}. Assume that peak skill is where ln{skill} starts to get flat.
Most players in BW fall in the lower end of skill where if they discover small things like a basic build order they shoot up in skill over their friends. Then the average online player falls in that middle range where they get less return for the skill increase but still a decent amount. Then the top players are at that flat part at the top where they get less return for their skill increase because they are approaching optimal play.
In starcraft 2 everybody gets shifted to the right on this graph and those average online players get closer to the top pros than they would be in SCBW. This is because the average players get more out of getting shifted to the right than the top pros do.
NTT did a lot more whining posts on the forums of blizzard. He is the highest ranked player I had put on ignore because of making countless 'dumb' posts. I really hope he finds a way to be less tempered and just enjoy playing, because it will cost him his reputation.
Nice to see he is reconsidering. I don't really care that much but I liked him in bw so it's always nice to have memorable players playing SC2. Hope he gets over his frustration and will be able to adapt
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
The game is just not demanding enough mechanically. It's just gimmicks upon gimmicks upon gimmicks. Maps are horrendous, balance is non existent, gameplay is straightjacketed, and monkeys can be trained to execute some of these build orders. 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. From Brood War to this is like going from F1 to a go-kart.
I gave the game an honest chance, but it's trash, sorry to say. Gave a bunch of free wins in my last 10 or so games. Might do some more insta f10-n'ing should I feel generous. If anyone poor needs an account, you can have this one as soon as Blizzard allows the free name change.
Noobs won't understand my issues with the game because they're noobs, c'est la vie.
you want to figure out about starcrafts future after this lazy opinion? cant you read right through it?
this who-ever noob this is, clearly got pwnd, could not compete on a high level and is crying.. every single complain he made, made me laugh, because its clownish and absurd
fact is: this one has no brain nor can he argue based on facts. and fact, too: he doenst deserves any kind of attention here.
and yea, makes no difference if this freak comes around with a clearification later. all the things stated and argued in his first post were enough to define him as a narzist that crys for more attention.
Didn't he joined the Serious Gaming Team on the 2nd of September ? Which comes over to me as a very premature opinion, this game is now little over 2 months old ?
I think it too early in the life cycle of the game to call it "klote" if i may refer to a dutch word.
Either way i cannot understand some of the reactions here, simply because you never heard of him doesn't mean he is a bad player or attention seeker, he's always in the Blizzard list of top200 players.
I guess he earned a little more respect then what most people are posting here.
But i stand by my point it's too premature to tell something now when almost every BO / tactic is just a flavour of the month thing.
On October 07 2010 07:57 FatHuntresS wrote: didnt read all the replies but what NTT said was spot on and true.
when i was playing war3 its all about micro and skills. in sc2 , its not.. its cheese, you cant scout fast enough because maps are too small and its too imbalance, so its just like rock paper scissor ( random bo.. like lucky draw) and A ground to win seriously..
WC3 for me had the same drawbacks as what you say for SC2.
Originally the game had insane gimmicks and cheeses, christ for the first 6 months of the game it was referred to as castercraft, where mass healing/bloodlust etc were popular strats because blizz didn't have the foresight to lower casting units damage.
After that you had no tourney wins by anything but NE because offensive Ancient of War rushes were far far too powerful.
Following that in TFT some people managed to make their way to the top of the ladder with BM being the ONLY hero of choice because of his insane ability to fast creep to 6.
Don't come on here comparing a 9 year old game to a 2 month old one. One of the main reasons I quit WC3 was because of the awful gimmick strats and cheese, to me it was the complete opposite of BW.
However that being said, the game was patched through the years, the nerfbat was swung, some things were buffed and what resulted was a fairly balanced game (although I've heard that UD has been hurting for some time now). The same will happen in SC2, the game is barely 2 months old and we have YET to see a really large balance patch, blizz is just trying a few things here and there.
Compared to WC3/TFT at the 2 month mark, this game is far more about skill and far more balanced than WC3 could have hoped for during it's early days.
sadly, as bad as this game is... it's still the only one out there. i cant even play sc1 anymore since all the channels are empty and got no friends online. i believe this is happening for most of the w3 players. some other game must replace sc2 asap or most of the rts standards will change to a retarded level
I don't understand why people even bother calling NTT a troll or spit on him. Obviously he didn't start this thread on TL.net. He is simply saying his opinion of the game on the B.nets forums with a QQ rant, one of many.
And honestly, NTT is right in everything he said in every single post and all those subjects were debated to death in the beta. Either you like the stuff he listed, which is legitimate, and you play the game or you don't like the shit he listed... And then you can decide if you want to continue to play or quit. He decided to quit obviously and I who agrees with him decided to accept the game for what it is and continue to play.
But the game has turned out to be quite short lived for me too mainly because Battle.net 2.0 is such a boring "client" to play on. There is simply not a fun way to play SC2 as a traditional ladder climber/PGT whore like me. And even when trying the casual approach i feel b.net 2.0 is unsatisfying with 0 options for casual plays. It's only the ladder - and the ladder is boring.
Ah well, starting to derail a bit. But thats just my 2 cents!
On October 07 2010 07:57 FatHuntresS wrote: didnt read all the replies but what NTT said was spot on and true.
when i was playing war3 its all about micro and skills. in sc2 , its not.. its cheese, you cant scout fast enough because maps are too small and its too imbalance, so its just like rock paper scissor ( random bo.. like lucky draw) and A ground to win seriously..
WC3 for me had the same drawbacks as what you say for SC2.
Originally the game had insane gimmicks and cheeses, christ for the first 6 months of the game it was referred to as castercraft, where mass healing/bloodlust etc were popular strats because blizz didn't have the foresight to lower casting units damage.
After that you had no tourney wins by anything but NE because offensive Ancient of War rushes were far far too powerful.
Following that in TFT some people managed to make their way to the top of the ladder with BM being the ONLY hero of choice because of his insane ability to fast creep to 6.
Don't come on here comparing a 9 year old game to a 2 month old one. One of the main reasons I quit WC3 was because of the awful gimmick strats and cheese, to me it was the complete opposite of BW.
However that being said, the game was patched through the years, the nerfbat was swung, some things were buffed and what resulted was a fairly balanced game (although I've heard that UD has been hurting for some time now). The same will happen in SC2, the game is barely 2 months old and we have YET to see a really large balance patch, blizz is just trying a few things here and there.
Compared to WC3/TFT at the 2 month mark, this game is far more about skill and far more balanced than WC3 could have hoped for during it's early days.
/endrant
I vouch for this. War3 in 2002-03, including 1.05 was castercraft and Ancient of Wars + the occasional tower rushes. And it actually got worse and worse. It took the people a while to realize the power of that crap, took 2-3 months or so :D. My AoW rushes were so sweet. Also, this didn't get fixed until TFT by redoing all damage types and armor types (including the ones for unrooted buildings). If my memory serves me right some tournaments even banned AoW rushing.
All of the grandfathers complaining about SC2 is laughable. No one will miss you. SC2 is dynamic and a great deal of fun to play. It is also an engaging spectator vehicle and thus a perfect choice for the emerging esports culture.
I loved BW too. But those days are over -- embrace the bright future (or leave and quit whining).
On October 21 2010 07:52 IPA wrote: All of the grandfathers complaining about SC2 is laughable. No one will miss you. SC2 is dynamic and a great deal of fun to play. It is also an engaging spectator vehicle and thus a perfect choice for the emerging esports culture.
I loved BW too. But those days are over -- embrace the bright future (or leave and quit whining).
<3
I don't agree that it is laughable. A lot of us old timers waited for this game a long time. We had high expectations and it's fully legitimate to be disappointed and reject this game. But it is true what you are saying - maybe it is so that many of us are to old to enjoy this game in the same manner we enjoyed SC/BW back in 98 which was the benchmark for this game. I'm 27 now (15 when SC came) and you might be right if we oldies stfu about the old times and old games :D They are still here if we want to play em.
On October 21 2010 07:18 tehsex wrote: sadly, as good as this game is... it's still the only one out there. i cant even play sc1 anymore since all the channels are empty and got no friends online. i believe this is happening for most of the w3 players. some other game must replace sc2 asap or most of the rts standards will change to a retarded level
How is it not understandable why people are calling him a troll? It doesn't matter what he did, and it doesn't matter who he was. If he writes posts like that - if Boxer or Flash or whoever writes posts like that - I would call him a troll. These are blatantly trolling posts. Even if God himself wrote the same in bright fiery letters in the sky it is still trolling, and I think that it's unacceptable for someone who seems to want the high ground.
Oh I love this kind of drama, what I love more is seeing old-school kali players <3. Wondering when Thor, Aquanda, Maven come back and we all log back on back @ katan's lair, maven's haven or tao-of-gaming. Shit I even miss X_mage_X.
I've just been reading his post history on the b-net forums. The guy is brilliant :D. Almost all his posts are great fun to read. Its rants, qq:s, taunts and some insightful posts in between.
Listen Dimaga, you invested all your efforts into learning zerg when they were BROKEN BEYOND BELIEF. Now that the game has evolved you feel the need to make a PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT SWITCHING? Hypocritical drama queen.
On October 21 2010 08:58 Boertie wrote: Oh I love this kind of drama, what I love more is seeing old-school kali players <3. Wondering when Thor, Aquanda, Maven come back and we all log back on back @ katan's lair, maven's haven or tao-of-gaming. Shit I even miss X_mage_X.
People here would even call Boxer a troll if he talked negatively about SC2.
And in a sense people are right for saying it doesn't matter what NTT says. It doesn't matter what he says because of who he is, or was. It matters if what he says is correct and accurate. And apart from some balance whining, he is spot on. And it's not like Boxer and Nada would disagree. Or even Idra and Artosis. It is just that SC2 is where the money is at. And after grinding away for 8 years, 240 days a year, 12 hours a day with not even the slightest chance to ever matter again in SC BW, making the switch to SC2 is quite an easy thing to do no matter how flawed the game is.
Some little offtopic but i want to make some point:
I was semi-pro CS player for few years, mostly 1.5-1.6 era, than CS:source was done, so many ppl were excited, but it was a big fail, nice graphics with newbie friendly mechanics, and many others things, skill ceiling very low etc. CS:Source briefly got highly sponsored, few big US names went for Source, but they got back, to put it shortly it was for money, one big show.
/end of OT
Now i did this off-topic becasue the whole BW/SC2 thing kinda reminds me of this. Also watching the whole gaming industry and Blizzard decision making seems that there are indeed other priorities. I Believe SC2 is already in better shape than Source was compared to 1.6 but still it won't be as big as BW at least untill Blizz decides to change half freaking multiplayer mechanics. Seriously the statistics don't lie, how much of player base are those who care for genuine multiplayer ? 1% or less?
Does it mean i hate SC2? No im past my prime and it kinda suits me but im not telling myself any dreams anymore, thats gonna be 2nd BW .
Farewell dear noobs. Enjoy your mbs, your automing, your warp-in, your reactors, your void rays, your stim and your blink. I've had it with the gimmicks and the lack of fundamental RTS gameplay. What a waste of time this has been.
The game is just not demanding enough mechanically. It's just gimmicks upon gimmicks upon gimmicks. Maps are horrendous, balance is non existent, gameplay is straightjacketed, and monkeys can be trained to execute some of these build orders. 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. From Brood War to this is like going from F1 to a go-kart.
I gave the game an honest chance, but it's trash, sorry to say. Gave a bunch of free wins in my last 10 or so games. Might do some more insta f10-n'ing should I feel generous. If anyone poor needs an account, you can have this one as soon as Blizzard allows the free name change.
Noobs won't understand my issues with the game because they're noobs, c'est la vie.
Big fucking deal. He quit bw somewhere around 30 times. Each time he got attention..
In fact the only guy to declare they are quitting then stick to it in recent history has been Silver. NTT can go to Dreamhack and waste an invite space all he wants. Afterwards he will complain that TvZ is impossible and P's are no-skill 2 basers. Quit. Resurface.. etc etc.
On November 18 2010 00:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Big fucking deal. He quit bw somewhere around 30 times. Each time he got attention..
In fact the only guy to declare they are quitting then stick to it in recent history has been Silver. NTT can go to Dreamhack and waste an invite space all he wants. Afterwards he will complain that TvZ is impossible and P's are no-skill 2 basers. Quit. Resurface.. etc etc.
On November 18 2010 00:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Big fucking deal. He quit bw somewhere around 30 times. Each time he got attention..
In fact the only guy to declare they are quitting then stick to it in recent history has been Silver. NTT can go to Dreamhack and waste an invite space all he wants. Afterwards he will complain that TvZ is impossible and P's are no-skill 2 basers. Quit. Resurface.. etc etc.
Haha it's funny this thread got 32 posts and everyone lashing and flaming each other and comparing BW and SC2 and then the reason - that NTT quits SC2 - announces he goes to Dreamhack
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.itte.org.uk/system/files/2518update.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5126/reality.png)
![[image loading]](http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/9733/tvtfw.jpg)
