EPT[Spoilers] Is SC2 too volatile ? - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
link0
United States1071 Posts
| ||
|
Slago
Canada726 Posts
| ||
|
Highways
Australia6106 Posts
The game needs superstars, players who you can cheer for. But SC2 in its current state is just so random, anybody can win on a given day. | ||
|
tarath
United States377 Posts
On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote: shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them. Its real time strategy. Every game in that realm will have a "real time" component and a "strategy" component and depending on where in the spectrum things falls will decide what roll strategy vs mechanics play in determining the winner. I don't see what is wrong with SC2 moving a very small step in the direction of chess from BW so that thinking plays a slightly bigger role and handspeed plays a slightly smaller one... Obviously it might upset some established elite who won't be as dominate in SC2 as they were in BW as it will reward a different skill set but it doesn't make it a bad game. Furthermore, if how fast you can do stuff is what you think should be the main challenge in SC2, intentionally crippling the interface to make it like broodwar seems retarded compared to introducing more new exciting micro requiring units/abilities. Posters in this thread are arguing that the game is too easy mechanically so bad players can win and great players can never dominate. My point is just that if that were the problem then bad players could win at chess also which is clearly not the case and that a strategy game need not be volatile even if the "real time" element is less pronounced. | ||
|
cozzE
Australia357 Posts
| ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
What league are you in? There's so many build order wins in mirror matchups, and guessing zerg has to do when terran walls off on bottom of the ramp in close positoins, or i guess you can all in on ling roach or something... rofl | ||
|
Elefanto
Switzerland3584 Posts
low levels are defending the "strategy" part of the game, saying mechanical skill is not wanted and you should win solely by picking the right build. execution doesn't matter. this makes me so sad, because i get the impression so many people think that they got now the chance to compete with players much much more skilled than themselves and netting wins they simply don't deserve based on the big luck factor in sc2. | ||
|
tarath
United States377 Posts
On March 17 2011 10:34 Elefanto wrote: god this thread is awful low levels are defending the "strategy" part of the game, saying mechanical skill is not wanted and you should win solely by picking the right build. execution doesn't matter. this makes me so sad, because i get the impression so many people think that they got now the chance to compete with players much much more skilled than themselves and netting wins they simply don't deserve based on the big luck factor in sc2. This is totally misconstruing what I'm saying. STRATEGY IS NOT PICKING A BUILD ORDER. It is reacting to your opponent and decision making in game. No one wants to pick a build order and win or lose. I just think that having amazing decision making (like NesTea or OgsTheWind) be rewarded slightly over mechanics is great. SC2 allowing for this is the reason that NesTea is the best zerg in the world in SC2 but was never near the top of SC1. NesTea makes amazing decisions, is always in his opponents head and 1 step ahead of them, and understands the matchups and I love watching players like that be rewarded. I don't even think you get what "strategy means". You're acting like it means picking a build in advance and praying it wins which is retarded. | ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
With the new maps and the game being more "figured out" then before, this has been the least luck-based GSL yet. MKP, MVP, and Nestea lost because they didn't play to their full potential. End of story. They didn't lose to cheese, and they had enough information about their opponents to make correct decisions, they just didn't play there best. | ||
|
JBrown08
Canada306 Posts
On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote: shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them. Let's be honest a lot of people just want the game to play itself for them. It is a hard game, and skill should be the only determining factor in it's outcome. It is rather unfortunate for these people however that skill takes time and effort to aquire. For all of those people who claim they want it to be a "pure" strategy game, are you a competitive chess player (it is so awesome afterall)? Or would you rather we skip the whole playing football part of the NFL and just have the coaches think it out? Pure strategy games are not sports, the whole reason we view starcraft as a sport is due to the mechanical aspect of it. Don't ruin it for us. Now with that said; the skill ceiling for a lot of the powerful strategies being executed at the moment is waaay too low. The risk reward and the 4th resource (multitasking/focus) are not in balance with each other. It is far too easy to shut down scouting, abuse map design, and destroy players better than you. So yes it is volitle, and yes Idra is right when practicing 10 hours a day it is pretty easy for people to close that skill gap awful quick. | ||
|
Earthness2000
Canada30 Posts
| ||
|
BaBaUTZ
Germany146 Posts
Though now, after SC2 is released, i am a bit disappointed. I like the easier unit and macro management. But where are the great new Micro moves, Blizzard promised us? Why do we get Hydras, Ultras, Thors, Immortals, Colossi, Marauders or Banshees? Now i dont mind a few "simple to handle" units for the noobs, or units that are "only" good without micro, but great when u micro them. But the truth is, there arent actually a lot of skill-rewarding units. Those would help to raise the skill ceiling and would make the game less volatile (i.e. defend unscouted cheese with superior micro and some power units), the game would still be as newbie friendly as it is now and the game would be more exciting to watch. | ||
|
Sensator
Australia377 Posts
The game is so new, so nothing is ironed out yet, sure there are the 'common builds' in certain matchups, but these change almost every month, not to mention the amount of balance changes that change the game regularly. Also, because the game is so new, there is a high level of competition, the 'top' players are not that far ahead of the players that are ranked underneath them. I think this makes the game very interesting, you see a lot of people that you've never seen before pulling off some amazing plays and getting high placements in tournaments. SC2 will have its day where everything is ironed out and there will be the top 20 players that dominate everyone else with little to no new talent, but that is far into its future. | ||
|
Ironsights
United States196 Posts
"Skill" is "strategy". This is TRUE. Being able to formulate a game plan, adapt that plan around changing battlefield conditions and knowing how to respond to emergencies is skill. Pulling a surprise tactic off without getting caught is skill. Strategy and skill go hand in hand. "Skill" is "mechanics". This is TRUE. Being able to micro marines to defeat banelings, being able to micro stalkers to make them far more immortal than any immortal...these things are skills. Flying through hot keys to micro a battle, build reinforcements and build new structures all at the same time is skill. Mechanics and skill go hand in hand. The problem with arguements over these things is that most peopel involved tend to argue that the skill sets are mutually exclusive: ie one is superior to the other. This is simply not true. You could posses the ability to produce and APM of 300 with ZERO spamming but utterly lack strategy and NEVER win. Likewise you could have the BEST build order ever dreamed up, one that would make the Darkvoice and Overmind shit their pants in unison, but without the finger speed to pull it off you will lose with it over and over. Skill in starcraft2 isn't just one thing. It is the bigger picture. | ||
|
chonkyfire
United States451 Posts
edit: although the banshees did win that game i supppose | ||
|
happyness
United States2400 Posts
On March 17 2011 11:10 chonkyfire wrote: In Mvp's case... I think that terrans are getting owned using the OP mmm army composition. Mvp's only win last night was with... siege tanks edit: although the banshees did win that game i supppose So his only win was due to a banshee. But I do agree that terrans have to figure something out other than MMM | ||
|
IamBach
United States1059 Posts
| ||
|
kaisr
Canada715 Posts
On March 17 2011 10:38 tarath wrote: This is totally misconstruing what I'm saying. STRATEGY IS NOT PICKING A BUILD ORDER. It is reacting to your opponent and decision making in game. No one wants to pick a build order and win or lose. I just think that having amazing decision making (like NesTea or OgsTheWind) be rewarded slightly over mechanics is great. SC2 allowing for this is the reason that NesTea is the best zerg in the world in SC2 but was never near the top of SC1. NesTea makes amazing decisions, is always in his opponents head and 1 step ahead of them, and understands the matchups and I love watching players like that be rewarded. I don't even think you get what "strategy means". You're acting like it means picking a build in advance and praying it wins which is retarded. play zerg and react to my build order when im T or P in the first 6 minutes. This in itself isn't a huge problem because the same problem was present in BW, but there were legimate builds you could do that would do ok/keep you alive and not insanely behind vs pretty much everything. This is not the case in sc2. The reason Nestea is the best zerg in sc2 is cuz nobody better than him in bw has swithced to sc2. | ||
|
dave333
United States915 Posts
You also don't have good "micro" units anymore. No more disruption web, defilers, no smartcast storm, vultures/mines, idiotic dragoons, reaper/shuttle, muta stacking etc. Instead we have stuff like hellions and collossi. Perhaps it is because a lot of the technically challenging parts of the game were taken out is why there seems to be smaller skill gaps. | ||
|
pawai
Canada10 Posts
On March 17 2011 09:59 MichaelJLowell wrote: What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set. First of all thanks for your post, I believe you explained SC2's true state perfectly. There is so much hope and expectations in this game it's ridiculous. I'm thinking people are spending more time thinking and arguing about it than actually playing it. The early years of SC and War3 were no different, but this time the community expected the pro's to figure things out almost instantly. What this means is Blizzard successfully made people believe that they had developed the perfect esports (I profoundly hate that word) game right from the start. Many friends of mine fell for it. They had all played the older games casually, but this time they thought it was something bigger and that they had to get good quickly. Never have I ever seen a game absorb people not for what it was, but for what it should be. All this talk about esports is irrelevant. Any popular game with a big player base will have exceptional players, and support all kinds of tournaments and competition. What drives most of them? The passion they have for their game, not a feeling of accomplishment in a business that "could", "perhaps", "eventually" allow them to make a living out of it. I'm seeing it in many SC2 streams now. Some people are making good money, but I've seen their morale and passion decay over the past months. It's work now. It's work for a game that has been established by Activision-Blizzard, not by the player base. | ||
| ||
