|
On March 17 2011 10:38 tarath wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Nestea is arguably the best zerg who switched from SC1 to SC2. MVP is the best terran to switch from SC1 to SC2. MC is the best protoss to switch from SC1 to SC2. See a pattern here? You do realize none of the top BW players switched to SC2?
Also, the difference between chess and SC is that in SC players have limited knowledge. The fact that you have to make decisions based off of a limited amount of knowledge increases the luck factor. There's no luck in chess because you know what your opponent is doing and vice versa. The question is do you want SC to be more of a luck game, like poker, or more of a skill game, like football.
|
On March 17 2011 11:46 pawai wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Thanks for the nod. I agree with you completely. It seems a lot of people have soured on Starcraft II but continue to keep playing the game anyway. For the amateur players, it appears to be "I don't want to lose my sense of community." For the players that are good enough to play for money, it's "I don't want to lose my shot at e-sports fame." I just don't get why people are willing to subject themselves to this grind. The financial prospects aren't particularly compelling and if Brood War is that good, do you really need your buddies to continue making it fun? If people don't feel Starcraft II is playing to their standards, they can come back in two years and buy the expansion pack and see if the game plays more to their liking. If Brood War is the game that "requires more skill" and you play that for those two years, it's not like you're going to lose any practice. o.o
|
On March 17 2011 12:23 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 11:46 pawai wrote: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. Thanks for the nod. I agree with you completely. It seems a lot of people have soured on Starcraft II but continue to keep playing the game anyway. For the amateur players, it appears to be "I don't want to lose my sense of community." For the players that are good enough to play for money, it's "I don't want to lose my shot at e-sports fame." I just don't get why people are willing to subject themselves to this grind. The financial prospects aren't particularly compelling and if Brood War is that good, do you really need your buddies to continue making it fun? If people don't feel Starcraft II is playing to their standards, they can come back in two years and buy the expansion pack and see if the game plays more to their liking. If Brood War is the game that "requires more skill" and you play that for those two years, it's not like you're going to lose any practice. o.o
So do you play BW or SC2? I don't really understand.
|
On March 17 2011 12:30 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 12:23 MichaelJLowell wrote:On March 17 2011 11:46 pawai wrote: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. Thanks for the nod. I agree with you completely. It seems a lot of people have soured on Starcraft II but continue to keep playing the game anyway. For the amateur players, it appears to be "I don't want to lose my sense of community." For the players that are good enough to play for money, it's "I don't want to lose my shot at e-sports fame." I just don't get why people are willing to subject themselves to this grind. The financial prospects aren't particularly compelling and if Brood War is that good, do you really need your buddies to continue making it fun? If people don't feel Starcraft II is playing to their standards, they can come back in two years and buy the expansion pack and see if the game plays more to their liking. If Brood War is the game that "requires more skill" and you play that for those two years, it's not like you're going to lose any practice. o.o So do you play BW or SC2? I don't really understand.
I play Starcraft II. I played Brood War regularly for about two years prior to the release of Starcraft II. As of the moment, my interest in both games is pretty "meh". I'm mostly tired of this brand of bickering. I had to get it off my chest.
|
This thread confirm the idea that most of the community really wanted SC2 to be Brood Wars with better graphics.
|
Control and other aids will become only more advanced. I'm sorry for people who still holding to idea of bringing back the mechanical(slave) part in the game somehow will improve the game.
It is a fact across all games, it's something like life, even if you don't like, this is how it is.
Players become Champions by adapting and figuring out next step before others(abusing if you wish), not hoping for their best qualities being favorable within game structure. Guy who able to do this more often than other is a Legend.
|
On March 17 2011 13:23 drcatellino wrote:
This thread confirm the idea that most of the community really wanted SC2 to be Brood Wars with better graphics.
If its the better game I do not see a problem with that.
|
From what I've heard, I think MVP is shaken from his loss to July. He just isn't at the top of his game atm.
|
On March 17 2011 04:47 Zystra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote:To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens  ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show. Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2.
But that's what i am saying, the single elimination matches will always cause upsets in every sport and that's why you dont see in football the same teams winning <b>tournaments</b> (not leagues)!
If we had a proper round robin league then we could tell how volatile/random this thing was.
|
On March 17 2011 11:43 dave333 wrote:
If you ever played BW, you'd know it was a waay more mechanically demanding game than SC2. Just managing your workers required pretty high apm, not to mention that you had to move your armies with many hotkeys. Smart casting, ball of units, etc. have simplified the game mechanically. Y
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.
To accommodate to the masses blizzard has to do remove the essential of part of what makes bw the game it was that is heavily mechanics dependent and although you are great in macro if you can't micro out of the trouble you get in late game its game over for you . That being said sc2 is probably good game for the new gen as they want everything flashy and easy (hence MBS and smart casting ) with that in your way and an level playing field how can there be a Flash , Jaedong , Stork ,Bisu in sc2 i don't see it coming for now but it blizzards steps up to do something with the game with probably more units that are difficult but gives more reward to the user who is able to control them than it probably will make this game a better game that's my opinion . good luck sc2 ...
|
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.
What are you talking about?
Of course execution matters and the mechanical factor although toned down compared to BW it's still in there. Luck has its role in every sport, the same goes for mind games. I personally think that the map awareness / scouting that SC2 requires compared to BW is a lot more but ieveryone seems to ignore this fact and whine about the mechanical dumb-down.
Oh yeah, i only wanted to see players with 350 apm being able to play this strategy game...
|
On March 17 2011 15:05 Sawamura wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 11:43 dave333 wrote:
If you ever played BW, you'd know it was a waay more mechanically demanding game than SC2. Just managing your workers required pretty high apm, not to mention that you had to move your armies with many hotkeys. Smart casting, ball of units, etc. have simplified the game mechanically. Y
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. To accommodate to the masses blizzard has to do remove the essential of part of what makes bw the game it was that is heavily mechanics dependent and although you are great in macro if you can't micro out of the trouble you get in late game its game over for you . That being said sc2 is probably good game for the new gen as they want everything flashy and easy (hence MBS and smart casting ) with that in your way and an level playing field how can there be a Flash , Jaedong , Stork ,Bisu in sc2 i don't see it coming for now but it blizzards steps up to do something with the game with probably more units that are difficult but gives more reward to the user who is able to control them than it probably will make this game a better game that's my opinion . good luck sc2 ...
Totally agree with this, i think that Blizzard has all the time in the world (and two expansions) to give us more itneresting units, and the community should discuss, give feedback and see what happens.
|
If it's 90% you want, look no further than nestea.
ZvT 58.33%
ZvZ 100%
ZvP 90.91%
I mean in BW didn't the favorites to win every tournament for the past year or so, Flash and Jaedong get knocked out in the first rounds of a recent individual league? Weren't there upsets? Weren't there periods where the champion got knocked out first round, disappeared, and came back *ala SlayerS_BoxeR?*
|
I think boxers TVT is amazing i mean he took out nada and made it to the round of 4 in season 2 wich wasnt all that long ago, but he really does need to focus alot on other matchups if his other matchups were as good as his TVT i think he would be near the top for sure, i doubt this is the last we will see of boxer he seems to be practicing really hard regardless of results, and those games vs zenio win or lose were some of the most entertaining games ive seen especially the one on xelnaga he killed like 10 hatches and was very close to a come back.
|
On March 17 2011 15:11 Aberu wrote:
If it's 90% you want, look no further than nestea.
ZvT 58.33%
ZvZ 100%
ZvP 90.91%
I mean in BW didn't the favorites to win every tournament for the past year or so, Flash and Jaedong get knocked out in the first rounds of a recent individual league? Weren't there upsets? Weren't there periods where the champion got knocked out first round, disappeared, and came back *ala SlayerS_BoxeR?*
Flash was the only one who got knocked out in Msl ro32 while jaedong got knocked out in Osl ro16 so it isn't like they have fallen so badly to lose to even scrubs in preliminary stages . Not a really big upsets to me as the game has totally change and players have grown strong through times and practice . Slayers_Boxer was the best in pre jaedong and flash era due to his micro as he rely too much on micro these days he can't beat the younger gen who have found a equilibrium in macro and micro hence that is why you are seeing the old players coming to sc2 these days although that is my opinion on the reason he move to sc2 but according to Lim yong hwan ( he did it for the fans that's why he came to sc2 ).
|
I think we can hit a happy medium between old school and new school.
What if instead of getting rid of automine and mbs and whatnot, we add in more macro mechanics that are difficult, but at least serve a purpose and don't make you feel like you're stuck in the 90's.
I think creep tumors are a great existing example. They add more macro mechanics for zerg to deal with, but they give you vision and speed bonus.
I think macro mechanics like this would satisfy both crowds: the brood war pros have more stuff to separate them from lesser players, and the sc2 people don't have to do things that feel pointless like send every new worker to minerals.
Perhaps bw pros won't like the idea of adding in a bunch of buffs as strong as creep tumors to each race, so instead, maybe the new macro mechanics could be very minimal in their effects. Something small and silly, like "reset warpgate crystals" on all warpgates (similar to larva inject). The main point is that we can add in more difficulty without it feeling completely forced and outdated and instead it could actually make a little sense and maybe even be fun.
|
I'm not saying that the OP is saying this, but i feel like the fairly reasonable line of thought in the OP is a slippery slope to saying that the game is too volatile because "my favorite player hasn't been consistently winning."
SC2 is a new battleground, and the RTS platform make it a perfect setting for a battle of wills. To be honest, as far as mental prowess goes, most people are pretty close to each other. True mastery of this new electronic battlefield will take time to really master.
If the tournament scene is volatile, its because players haven't found the edge to really outclass most opponents. The beautiful thing about the new starcraft scene is that the players that do come out with that winning edge have a much greater chance of being from anywhere is the world.
That being said, I still think fruitdealer, MVP, Boxer, Nestea and MKP are titans in this game and they definitely have the skill to be on that leading edge.
|
It's important to remember that the GSL is structured as a year-long league, that just happens to mostly be comprised of small tournaments. Come December, when those GSL Power Rankings are put to use, I'm pretty sure the ten best SC2 players will somehow be the ten in the Blizzard Cup.
ETA:
On March 17 2011 15:05 Sawamura wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 11:43 dave333 wrote:
If you ever played BW, you'd know it was a waay more mechanically demanding game than SC2. Just managing your workers required pretty high apm, not to mention that you had to move your armies with many hotkeys. Smart casting, ball of units, etc. have simplified the game mechanically. Y
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. To accommodate to the masses blizzard has to do remove the essential of part of what makes bw the game it was that is heavily mechanics dependent and although you are great in macro if you can't micro out of the trouble you get in late game its game over for you . That being said sc2 is probably good game for the new gen as they want everything flashy and easy (hence MBS and smart casting ) with that in your way and an level playing field how can there be a Flash , Jaedong , Stork ,Bisu in sc2 i don't see it coming for now but it blizzards steps up to do something with the game with probably more units that are difficult but gives more reward to the user who is able to control them than it probably will make this game a better game that's my opinion . good luck sc2 ...
Bold added, because I thought that was such an odd way of saying "The interface was so horrific* you needed 100+ APM and hundreds of hours of practice just to be able to make dudes out of all your buildings".
I don't mean to diminish BW, or players like Flash who are great at macro, but it frankly should not be impressive that someone who plays a game professionally can actually get his buildings to do what he wants.
Up until GSL 4, one-basing was pretty common. SCV-Marine all-ins off one base were pretty much standard TvZ in GSL 3. In GSL 4, most players were doing 2-base timings. Now GSL games are long macro games more often then not, thanks both to the new maps and the players getting better. As the games get longer, battles stop ending games, and harassment and smart engagements are becoming more and more important. Before the year is done, we'll do what pro starcraft players can do when they're not devoting more APM than most of us will ever hand just building units.
This game is going to get a lot better pretty soon.
*Though it wasn't bad by 1998 standards, of course
|
I think we're seeing a massive amount of volitity in the match and map build order understanding compared to brood war. People don't understand this game in and out yet. Every 2-3 weeks a new build order that comes out and starts crushing people who should know better, and many build order's are still paper rock scissoring each other, some that aren't really that good ultimately.
MVP made bad decisions, and lost because of it. He probably maid said bad decisions because IM doesn't have the Protosses that are pushing forward the game the way Alicia and Genius are. You can be good at SC2 right now, but to understand the game in a way that you are invincible at this stage is just kinda unlikely.
A huge part of any RTS is that game sense, "can I have my units here on the map right now" will X army beat opponents Y army. The game just hasn't standardized to the point where all exceptions are mapped out yet.
|
On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote:
Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own. 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.
I find this interesting.
It seems some people are more interested in the "Real Time" aspect
And some other people are interested in the "Strategy Game" aspect.
It is comparable to playing chess and having every piece be 6 ft tall and weigh 200lbs on a giant board.
Yes, there is strategy, and those who can do strategy are the best. But you have all the grandmasters left out of the game, not because they are not good enough, but because they lack the strength to participate. Grandmasters are replaced with strong 18-28 year olds, who may not play the "strategy" part as well, but are able to move more pieces before getting exhausted.
Not that this is inherently a bad thing for a game like SC2. But the analogy works. The games are different. Real time is definitely important for this type of game.
But SC2 and even SC1 has a small divide amongst the Real Time and the Strategy parts of the game. I can sit back all day and analyze, examine and criticize the pro gamers on everything from timings to probe count. I can watch streams and say what they should be doing based on scouting information and such. But I am a terribly bad at playing the game. Not because I lack the strategy but because I lack the execution.
Because of this, I can never be a pro-gamer, and for that, I can understand.
Imagine a game where there is literally no UI. It is implanted into your mind. What you want to happen, happens. No mouse, no keyboard. But all the basic mechanics like microing unit splits, remembering to inject larvae, keeping your money down and everything.
What would be interesting about this would be that a whole new set of pro-gamers would join the mix (no not me... I can't even remember to Chrono-boost 3 minutes into the game). Those who maybe feel limited with the keys and mouse and clicks and APM, and rather play with such strong IN GAME mechanics.
However I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. There are room for REAL TIME strategy games and real time STRATEGY games in this world.
What we seem to have in SC2 AT THE MOMENT (for whatever reason... could be because it is in it's infancy, or because Bo3 format is risky, or because SC2 is stupid... whatever we may think), is that SC2 is laying right in the middle of those two lines, and because of that, it is being blurred and appears to be volitile. SC1 was very mechanical and the UI limited a lot. Those with insanely high APM and mechanical prowess were able to CRUSH everyone, very quickly... even those who may have had stronger strategy. So they rose to the top. In SC2, their mechanical prowess isn't as important (and still has room to improve), opening room for the strategists who may have been left behind in SC1. Thus there are more people fighting for top spots, leading to a quickly evolving game. People making mistakes both mechanically and strategically, however, so it is very difficult to make that judgment yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
