On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote: yes it is too volatile and its not going to change blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games.
Idra, I think your problem is that you are remembering how hard you could crush all of the other white guys in BW. But... you still got crushed by the Koreans. You talk as if in BW, you were beating players because of your superior mechanics and you can't do it so easily in SC2. You mention mbs, smartcasting and improved unit AI make it more difficult for you to consistantly beat players that you are already better in, in terms of overall skill. You were good enough to make it on a team in Korea and that is about it.
So can you admit that you lost to the Koreans and never succeeded 'big' as a BW player strictly because their mechanics were strictly better than yours? You seem to clearly be implying that it is the issue in SC2... that there isn't a big enough skill gap between your mechanics and the mechanics of other white guys. So what was your winrate in BW compared to SC2?
The fact is, you've had some pretty decent results in SC2. How can you really say that things are so random? You've made it pretty far in GSL and have shown that you are Code S worthy. You must at least agree that your biggest strength is your mechanics and not your game sense(we know how you tend to lose games...not saying your game sense isn't SUPER strong, but just look back at how you've lost matches in GSL seasons). Yet your mechanics are allowing you to do pretty darn well. Maybe you just need to accept that while you are among the best zergs in the world, but you just aren't the best... just like in BW.
I don't see your results having anything to do with SC2 being more 'random' and 'volatile'... I just see your results correctly lining up to your skill level. Just look at BW winrates... they aren't very different than in SC2, and that is a game with years of strategies and so many tiny things being figured out. Of course there will be a bit more randomness in SC2 when the metagame still hasn't settled down and there has been such little time for things like timings and strategies to get developed to the point where nobody is truly surprised by anything.
i find it funny someone with no reputable reputation of teamliquid decides to try and act as if he is superior to idra. after doing some snooping I learned skipdog is indeed a protoss player [diamond 1250 points]
now lets take into consideration that idra has 3 accounts: 4049(us) 2681 (eu this is a brand new acct) 3811 (kr hasn't been played in awhile)
So i'm trying to comprehend how you can justify that you can be condescending to idra yet you have nothing to back it up, also, it seems all your opinions are formed from the thread rekrul posted regarding idra after he lost a series 2-5 after saying he would 5-2. pros don't win all the time--no one does. But honestly no one likes condescension especially when you can't even back it up.
oh and for shits and giggles i found this in the 100 4gate-challenge thread:
On November 25 2010 06:24 skipdog172 wrote: I'll never understand the 4-gate hate. Oh noes, it's a somewhat decent timing attack! What is the point of whining about it?
can't say i'm surprised.
as for idra, is he the best player in the word? there is no defining criteria of the "best player" it is relative (see einstein's theory of relativity if you need help) seeing that you can't actually define the best player in the world, however, his play is extremely standard and his macro is possibly the best of any zerge--no one can disagree on that [I hope].
as for volatility, idra's suggestion (and many others) of a slight buff to ol base speed or ol speed on hatch tech would help so much, moreover, by getitng ol speed quicker, lair tech would be delayed so its not like the zerg will go for any sort of super cheese it simply makes the game less luck based or more skill, as idra would say if you want a game decided by random luck, play like choyafou.
I don't think sleepingdog ever mentioned or suggested once that he is as good or better than idra at starcraft. Even if his credentials are lacking he may be 100% correct (im not saying he is or isnt) and thats part of being a spectator in a spectator sport. Fans in real sports heckle players or talk about how bad or overrated someone is without having even a fracture of the ability of that player. I don't see how this is any different nor do I see how it is relevant or appropriate to put sleepingdogs information out there.
Yeah fans in other sports may do that, but not when they're talking face to face with the player, that would be silly. Also, I think his main point as that he was acting condescending towards Idra, which is true, and he shouldn't really be acting like that.
Anyway, I think if they fixed the game and made it more skill based the volatility of it would for sure go down. I still see people like Boxer, who admittedly isn't that great now, still make quite a few mistakes in terms of mechanics. The skill ceiling for SC2 is still not near peaking in my eyes. Until we can see the positive effects of taking all of those demanding actions out from BW (mbs etc), the ceiling will still be quite high, and so far that level of play hasn't really shone through.
On March 16 2011 22:58 arb wrote: the games still new, once the expansions are out and the games balanced.
then we'll see people like we did in broodwar
I don't know you well enough to simply say "lol sarcasm", but I certainly hope it was.
I did see other people with using that exact argument in this thread though, so let me just add that such thought is fucking stupid. Are you actually gonna wait like three or four years before you really can play the game? And then you don't even know for sure if it's gonna be worth it. Let me just list what blizzard has control over: Units, balance tweaks and single player missions. Maps are already out of their hands. It is by far the players and map makers who will have to make sc2 into something amazing. Of course they require blizzard to great a game for them, but I think it's insane put even one egg in that basket.
I agree, I HATE blizzard. Why even bother playing SC2? Or even posting on TL for that matter?
Why are we wasting our lives like this!?! Playing a shitty game that we hate oh so much!?!!!
The BW winrates are different and players are infact consistent over time, no point in trying to say SC2 is anything like that yet. The jump from 'S-Class' to high A-teamer to low A-teamer to high B-teamer etc. were all fairly significant just because of mechanical skill alone. A lower level player has a much better chance in SC2 of sneaking games from top players with luck, simple as that. It's the nature of the game and i doubt its going to change.
Lol at the people repeating 'It will get better' over and over since before the game was even released. There's big tournaments running NOW ffs.
Oh, shit. I was going to suggest it wasn't necessarily the game but the tournament format. If every series was Bo7 or Bo9 I don't see NesTea ever losing. The best players will BE the best players in that scenario.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
The "casual audience" should go and play FIFA or COD or whatever other shitty flavour of the month it is. Leave SC to the people with skill.
When you see posts like this you understand why is TeamLiquid often dubbed as Elitist.
Regarding game mechanics, I would really want to hear people about how exactly you can make them harder, and how it would improve competitive play. Cause everyone seems to be repeating the same things over and over again without really explaining. I guess some pro in some post said "we need harder mechanics" and as usual you have a bunch of followers acting as parrots and spewing these toughts all over the place on team liquid.
SC2 isn't volatile, it just hasn't been figured out yet.
It's so easy to auto-lose due to lack of early game scouting. It's pretty lame when I roll Protoss and lose to a Zerg player who does a 2 base Hydra all-in because he denies my scouting probe.
Of course, if you're Terran, then this doesn't happen as much - which is why Sjow can get away without scouting - and probably one of the reasons why Terrans have the highest win ratios.
Mostly retardation in this thread. If there are any statistically minded individuals around it would be great to see the probability of falling out of / staying in / winning the GSL given different estimations of players edges.
On March 16 2011 22:58 arb wrote: the games still new, once the expansions are out and the games balanced.
then we'll see people like we did in broodwar
I don't know you well enough to simply say "lol sarcasm", but I certainly hope it was.
I did see other people with using that exact argument in this thread though, so let me just add that such thought is fucking stupid. Are you actually gonna wait like three or four years before you really can play the game? And then you don't even know for sure if it's gonna be worth it. Let me just list what blizzard has control over: Units, balance tweaks and single player missions. Maps are already out of their hands. It is by far the players and map makers who will have to make sc2 into something amazing. Of course they require blizzard to great a game for them, but I think it's insane put even one egg in that basket.
I agree, I HATE blizzard. Why even bother playing SC2? Or even posting on TL for that matter?
Why are we wasting our lives like this!?! Playing a shitty game that we hate oh so much!?!!!
-_-
Well, some people love sc2 and I don't wonna blame them. By all means, play what you like to play! But if you don't like the game now, don't wait years for it to most likely not get any better.
On March 17 2011 06:47 Barca wrote: SC2 isn't volatile, it just hasn't been figured out yet.
It's so easy to auto-lose due to lack of early game scouting. It's pretty lame when I roll Protoss and lose to a Zerg player who does a 2 base Hydra all-in because he denies my scouting probe.
Of course, if you're Terran, then this doesn't happen as much - which is why Sjow can get away without scouting - and probably one of the reasons why Terrans have the highest win ratios.
If it is 'figured out' why would it then be less volatile? Presumably all the top players will understand the figuring out and copy any optimal builds, then it will be very minor things which separate them. Which will just lead to the 45-55% winrate thing that's discussed already.
More people should read this post which is the exact explanation of the most important difference:
On March 17 2011 01:00 loveeholicce wrote: Maybe, maybe not, I'm just speaking very generally here. I feel the biggest problem is the easier mechanics. Any mid masters player can execute a rush almost perfectly while keeping their macro consistent, so its easier to beat better players just cause ur strat or build happened to be better and it'll only come down to that. But in brood war everything was so hard to execute that u could overcome big disadvantages just by being way better than the other person. Like say u get any televised terran progamer to do a 2 fact all in vs an A+ toss on iccup. If the toss goes 2 gate range --> observers its pretty much the ideal counter build to a 2 fact but the progamer is gonna win 100% of the time just because of a difference in execution that isnt there in sc2
Note its nothing about 12 unit groups or MBS or any of that bullshit that people keep whining about, it's just pure unit control at a point in the game where you don't even reach a 12 unit limit. A better player should always win in this type of situation but it's just not true anymore.
Not to mention the whole issue of comebacks and how unlikely it is now.
On March 16 2011 22:38 mr_tolkien wrote: A lot of people are not understanding the point of this thread.
It's not specifically related to MVP, it's a feeling I got since season 2 and FDs fall. Then Nestea vs Rain. Then MC vs Jinro (a HUGE upset). Saying it's linked to the youth of the game is also false. One year after the professionalisation of BW, they WERE players standing out clearly. It's not the case here, there are "top players" all clumped up together.
There is no bonjwa and none have the remote shape of one. MVP never looked like one to me. Neither did Mc or FD. The only one I really saw really standing out at a point was Nestea, but nothing happened. This guys are PAID for doing this. There HAS to be a player more gifted than the others. But clearly SC2 isn't made to allow him to stand out from the crowd.
This is wrong. Your examples in no way shape or form clearly show anything. FD won when the game was extremely young and not figured out(and it still isn't) and the game has already changed a ton since then. MC vs Jinro was an upset because MC used a stupid obscure(and probably little tested) carrier strat and failed at a rush in the first game.
And comparing it to brood war directly is also wrong. SC2's situation is completley different. A ton of former BW players switched over to SC2 and have done well because they have a head start with mechanics+understanding of RTS's. With BW it was a slower build up of better and better players while with SC2, it started out with a ton of players already very good at BW.
I don't know what the game will look like in the long run, you may be right, but I think you've come upon a premature conclusion with the few examples we've seen so far from the GSL.
But I also think bo3 is volatile by nature. What I would like to see GSL do is have more of a regular season format and a tournament at the end of the season instead of two big tournaments.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
I really dont see making machanics harder being the solution here, seriously.
Its like saying: All quake players should now play with a xbox controller !
Are you serious ? Can you see that you are actually moving backwards ? I get sad when i compare players playing halo on xbox with other players playing quake.
Make MORE controls available. Thats why they are making bigger maps. You need to control, 4 / 5 bases, 3 / 4 drops at same time, etc... First, i think different leagues should have different maps, and unit cap. There are a lot of ways to improve that, and making machanics harder, imho, is the worst of them.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
I really dont see making machanics harder being the solution here, seriously.
Its like saying: All quake players should now play with a xbox controller !
Are you serious ? Can you see that you are actually moving backwards ? I get sad when i compare players playing halo on xbox with other players playing quake.
Make MORE controls available. Thats why they are making bigger maps. You need to control, 4 / 5 bases, 3 / 4 drops at same time, etc... First, i think different leagues should have different maps, and unit cap. There are a lot of ways to improve that, and making machanics harder, imho, is the worst of them.
This actually makes sense. I think that instead of making mechanics more difficult by moving backwards into 1999 technology, they should add more mechanics to the game. This will take quite a while to think up and balance, but once they get it right, it could be quite good and it will separate the good from the elite. Note: Im not talking about MULES or Inject, im talking about something that applies to all of the armies, something cool that everyone will adore. I know, lets put destructable rocks all over the fucking map.
Sigh why do you people assume that harder mechanics means revert back the old style? Watch this video, this is what we mean by harder mechanics:
It's not UI limitations its just plain raw skill involved in controlling the units. Adding that element back into the game would be a start at separating the players in terms of skill.
On March 17 2011 07:22 Buddhist wrote: We have really consistent players. Idra did really well every single season till he left, MC is still a titan, Jinro is almost a titan himself.
It takes a player with a consistent playstyle to get consistent results.
Good job showing you didn't read the thread when IdrA is actually in here disagreeing with you.
Seriously so many 2010 posters coming into a thread, giving one sentence opinion without reading fuck all then leaving. It's getting ridiculous.
Making mechanics "harder" is laughable. This is a real time strategy game, not a real time mechanics game. The player that executes the better strategy and has better fundamentals like good macro/multitasking/micro deserves to win. Just because someone can manually mine their workers faster or cast spells by clicking on individual units doesn't mean that they should win, like I said this isn't a real time mechanics game, its an RTS.
All that manual mining and no smart casting is, is a hindrance. Of course a lot of the older BW players are going to want to bring back the hindrances because they're so used to them. The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap due to not being held back by having to manually click workers to set them to mine or worry about other small things that are really just a hassle.
On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote: yes it is too volatile and its not going to change blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games.
Idra, I think your problem is that you are remembering how hard you could crush all of the other white guys in BW. But... you still got crushed by the Koreans. You talk as if in BW, you were beating players because of your superior mechanics and you can't do it so easily in SC2. You mention mbs, smartcasting and improved unit AI make it more difficult for you to consistantly beat players that you are already better in, in terms of overall skill. You were good enough to make it on a team in Korea and that is about it.
So can you admit that you lost to the Koreans and never succeeded 'big' as a BW player strictly because their mechanics were strictly better than yours? You seem to clearly be implying that it is the issue in SC2... that there isn't a big enough skill gap between your mechanics and the mechanics of other white guys. So what was your winrate in BW compared to SC2?
The fact is, you've had some pretty decent results in SC2. How can you really say that things are so random? You've made it pretty far in GSL and have shown that you are Code S worthy. You must at least agree that your biggest strength is your mechanics and not your game sense(we know how you tend to lose games...not saying your game sense isn't SUPER strong, but just look back at how you've lost matches in GSL seasons). Yet your mechanics are allowing you to do pretty darn well. Maybe you just need to accept that while you are among the best zergs in the world, but you just aren't the best... just like in BW.
I don't see your results having anything to do with SC2 being more 'random' and 'volatile'... I just see your results correctly lining up to your skill level. Just look at BW winrates... they aren't very different than in SC2, and that is a game with years of strategies and so many tiny things being figured out. Of course there will be a bit more randomness in SC2 when the metagame still hasn't settled down and there has been such little time for things like timings and strategies to get developed to the point where nobody is truly surprised by anything.
i find it funny someone with no reputable reputation of teamliquid decides to try and act as if he is superior to idra. after doing some snooping I learned skipdog is indeed a protoss player [diamond 1250 points]
now lets take into consideration that idra has 3 accounts: 4049(us) 2681 (eu this is a brand new acct) 3811 (kr hasn't been played in awhile)
So i'm trying to comprehend how you can justify that you can be condescending to idra yet you have nothing to back it up, also, it seems all your opinions are formed from the thread rekrul posted regarding idra after he lost a series 2-5 after saying he would 5-2. pros don't win all the time--no one does. But honestly no one likes condescension especially when you can't even back it up.
oh and for shits and giggles i found this in the 100 4gate-challenge thread:
On November 25 2010 06:24 skipdog172 wrote: I'll never understand the 4-gate hate. Oh noes, it's a somewhat decent timing attack! What is the point of whining about it?
can't say i'm surprised.
as for idra, is he the best player in the word? there is no defining criteria of the "best player" it is relative (see einstein's theory of relativity if you need help) seeing that you can't actually define the best player in the world, however, his play is extremely standard and his macro is possibly the best of any zerge--no one can disagree on that [I hope].
as for volatility, idra's suggestion (and many others) of a slight buff to ol base speed or ol speed on hatch tech would help so much, moreover, by getitng ol speed quicker, lair tech would be delayed so its not like the zerg will go for any sort of super cheese it simply makes the game less luck based or more skill, as idra would say if you want a game decided by random luck, play like choyafou.
I don't think sleepingdog ever mentioned or suggested once that he is as good or better than idra at starcraft. Even if his credentials are lacking he may be 100% correct (im not saying he is or isnt) and thats part of being a spectator in a spectator sport. Fans in real sports heckle players or talk about how bad or overrated someone is without having even a fracture of the ability of that player. I don't see how this is any different nor do I see how it is relevant or appropriate to put sleepingdogs information out there.
I agree that in real sports players are heckled by others whether it be fans, commentators, or what not, however, this is different in several ways:
e-sports have not received wide-spread recognition as true sport(s) in western culture [YET]
fans/commentators, etc don't actually go up to the pro and say "you suck because of these reasons and you will never be better than them", yes ok there is cases of people doing it but it is not normal. moreover this a forum, in this case the pro (idra) is actually connecting with fans.
the player has absolutely no credibility is basically posts an article that is a summarization of rekrul's article (go check it out, you will see what i mean).
skipdog or w/e the fuck his name is nothing but an anti-idra fanboy who doesn't like him because of one or more of the following reasons: hes a standard macro player(ie his play is never like OMG SO CRAZY) he is "bad mannered", however, it is more like telling people that beat him they suck because all they can do are crazy allins because they know they can't compete with him mechanically, which in 99% of cases is true.
by no means am i sucking idra's dick, however, all these anti-idra fanboys are annoying as fuck and often are bronze league heroes who tell him hes: bad, sucks, etc, although in reality, they truly are the ones that suck.
On March 17 2011 07:37 Sovern wrote: Making mechanics "harder" is laughable. This is a real time strategy game, not a real time mechanics game. The player that executes the better strategy and has better fundamentals like good macro/multitasking/micro deserves to win. Just because someone can manually mine their workers faster or cast spells by clicking on individual units doesn't mean that they should win, like I said this isn't a real time mechanics game, its an RTS.
All that manual mining and no smart casting is, is a hindrance. Of course a lot of the older BW players are going to want to bring back the hindrances because they're so used to them. The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap due to not being held back by having to manually click workers to set them to mine or worry about other small things that are really just a hassle.
What the fuck did you even read my post right above yours. Who said that mechanics being harder meant those things. The main issue is units barely requiring control. Not automine.
Besides a REAL TIME strategy game is always going to favour mechanics because its in real time. Why you assume the only meaning of mechanics is those things i don't know. How can you possibly say:
The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap
This just false. Plain and simple completely fucking wrong. Look at the video. How is the micro/positioning anything like it at all? It bewilders me you could even suggest it requires more of any of those things, least of all because positional based units like the lurker and spider mines are out, and theres no cliff advantage meaning positioning is less important than ever. How can multitask have a higher skill cap when theres simply less to do? ugh this is just so wrong.
On March 17 2011 07:24 infinity2k9 wrote: Sigh why do you people assume that harder mechanics means revert back the old style? Watch this video, this is what we mean by harder mechanics:
It's not UI limitations its just plain raw skill involved in controlling the units. Adding that element back into the game would be a start at separating the players in terms of skill..
That video has very little to do with "mechanics" and everything to do with unit design.
BW didn't have deathballs, the units moved slower and were much more spaced out. Because the game was slower and the units had more space, it was actually EASIER to handle some aspects of unit control, such as manually targeting spider mines mid-battle. I would also argue that we already see unit control like this in SC2 whenever we watch a group of marines perfectly split against a baneling ball.
I think the game is more volatile because it rewards strategy more than macro mechanics. In BW, a player with weaker unit control (or who made an early mistake that set him behind) could win solely on the fact that he could create more stuff. In SC2, macro is much easier, which levels the mechanical playing field, leaving the result of the match up to the player that's best at controlling and positioning their army. Rewarding unit control over macro will result in more games where the better player can simply be out-played based on positioning or unit composition, rather than being able to keep up in macro.
That said, the ins and outs of this game are still being figured out. For instance, it's taken almost 3 months for strong phoenix builds to start making regular appearances in pro matches after their build-time buff. As time goes on, more and more timings and openings are going to be developed, leading to more consistency in play that will leave the better player (whether by macro or unit control) winning a higher percentage of games.
It's a bit of a cop-out, but we can NOT forget that the expansions are going to introduce new units and abilities for players to use, which will greatly enhance the dynamics of the game. Starcraft 1 was pretty volatile before BW was released, and then it took til patch 1.08 to really iron out how the units should work in harmony. A lot of the people whining about the volatility of the current scene are just being impatient.
There's too much guessing in this game. Build orders just hard counter other build orders, and most of the time you have to decide on your build before you see your opponents.
At least in Warcraft 3, no common opening just hard countered another common opening, so players won by raw skill (and maybe some item luck/imbalance) instead of by guessing the right build order to go.
On March 17 2011 07:37 Sovern wrote: Making mechanics "harder" is laughable. This is a real time strategy game, not a real time mechanics game. The player that executes the better strategy and has better fundamentals like good macro/multitasking/micro deserves to win. Just because someone can manually mine their workers faster or cast spells by clicking on individual units doesn't mean that they should win, like I said this isn't a real time mechanics game, its an RTS.
All that manual mining and no smart casting is, is a hindrance. Of course a lot of the older BW players are going to want to bring back the hindrances because they're so used to them. The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap due to not being held back by having to manually click workers to set them to mine or worry about other small things that are really just a hassle.
God damnit, did you read the post above yours? Posts like this make me rip my hair.
First off it's STARCRAFT, not chess. Second, mechanics are not only the things your talking about. Read the thread man, the point is many units are so fucking effective with simply a-click. If your build directly counters your opponent, you can just a-click and win, even if the opponent has better control. It helps nothing.
The best example is the Colossus. EVERYONE can use it to fullest potential, while it does ridiculous amount of damage. Theres no realy position required, no micro, nothing. That's were most people want to start, not removing mbs or automining.
EPT
