EPT[Spoilers] Is SC2 too volatile ? - Page 21
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
dras
Kazakhstan376 Posts
| ||
|
Foxcraft
Finland32 Posts
| ||
|
DarKFoRcE
Germany1215 Posts
| ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
On March 18 2011 00:49 Foxcraft wrote: Boxer did not end his career in brood war until his switch to SC2. I said he was near the end of his career. In otherwords saying that he wasn't up to par with the current pro-gamers. Which is why he made his switch. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
Take MVP's loss to Genius on Tal'darim. Tastosis said over and over that he shouldn't be trying to cross that huge map on 3 Rax to try to assault a Toss on 3 Gate with Forge upgrades. That seems like common sense, but obviously it wasn't to MVP. These things just take time and a lot more practice. I would agree with you if I felt these games were out of the control of our superhero's (MVP, BoxeR, Nestea) but in every game you could see crucial mistakes that they made while their opponents just flat out played better. But you can expect that this early in a game's lifespan. | ||
|
Somnolence
Lithuania127 Posts
On March 18 2011 00:46 dras wrote: the game is too unstable for it to be a legit esport in my opininion. I agree. In my opinion sports are more about players and teams than skill, this is why major competitions like World Cup are all based on national teams. It is important for any sports to have someone the spectators can root for. This is why having foreigners or stars in GSL consistently performing is very important. | ||
|
Griffith`
714 Posts
-200 food vs 200 food battles (where as in BW, it was more of a flux battle, ie. streams of units and fights all over the map) -fact that an entire marine army of 50 food can melt in the blink of an eye to storm, banelings, etc. -siege tanks now need PERFECT siege/unsiege timing (where is in BW, it was OK to miss your siege (o) button by a few seconds, as the battles were in STREAMS, meaning you would lose less units) -absurd late game imbalances (lol 27 larvae per hatchery, really?) SC2 is just a whole lot more gimmicky | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On March 18 2011 01:32 Griffith` wrote: things that contribute to the volatility: -200 food vs 200 food battles (where as in BW, it was more of a flux battle, ie. streams of units and fights all over the map) -fact that an entire marine army of 50 food can melt in the blink of an eye to storm, banelings, etc. -siege tanks now need PERFECT siege/unsiege timing (where is in BW, it was OK to miss your siege (o) button by a few seconds, as the battles were in STREAMS, meaning you would lose less units) -absurd late game imbalances (lol 27 larvae per hatchery, really?) SC2 is just a whole lot more gimmicky Missing your O timing in bw in a tvp match is a gg for you I can assure you that ask fbh for confirmation..... | ||
|
CalvinStorm
Canada78 Posts
Its really different from BW in game dynamics. Hidden tech is hard to spot and units die so quick, it is difficult to have the game be under the control of the player. I see mostly whoever guesses right about unit composition wins. Unit composition is more important than positioning in this game as everything dies so quick, it doesn't matter if you have the high ground or easier defense position. You are dead because counter units have really high + attack bonuses. Example: (I didn't play BW, this is all from observation of VODs.) In T v Z the terran would have the advantage over lurkers and zerglings on the offense with tanks and marines medics until zerg has defilers. Terran gets science vessels. When that happens, an interesting game occurs. Even if Terran has an overwhelming army attacking a small expansion, zerg can delay the terran attack using defilers and a few lurkers until reinforcements come. But the thing is defilers are limited use because of their high gas cost and fragile nature. So we see a see saw nature of zerg pushing the terran back with that cloud the defiler makes until a certain point before they run out of energy or science vessels irradiate them. This makes it interesting with lines drawn on the map as they each expand and try to get an advantage in positioning. This makes it so there are several armies on the field at the same time attacking, feinting, threatening, defending and sieging. But none of that happens in SC2, what happens is that either zerg gets enough banelings to A move into the terran army....or they don't. There is no delaying of either army using a few units. That is what bothers me. I used to play WC3 and it is the same idea, a base is easily defensible given you sim city correctly and have just enough units to defend while still being able to attack. In SC2 you have to keep your whole army together or else the other person will just gather them and A move into your small chunk into oblivion. | ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
| ||
|
Crushgroove
United States793 Posts
 | ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9935 Posts
| ||
|
SilentDrop
Brazil29 Posts
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. I dont, see reason below. On March 17 2011 12:06 Enervate wrote: 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. Thank you Envervate. You made a very clear and valid point here. I totally agree with you on that. One thing I would like to point out is that, the game does not need to be so random. For example, ill just list 2 situations: 1. From the 1 min mark to 7 or 8, sometimes, is nearly impossible to realize what your opponent is doing and "luck" or the "surprise element" plays a HUGE role in the game. Thats when win / loses starts to get "random". 2. In the late game, when you have 5 / 4 bases, having a lot of fights, harassing at the same time, dropping, etc., things start to get a little bit less random. Probably because the element of surprise is not so big anymore, you already have the economy and the production facilities to counter that. All you need is speed and multitasking to make those things happen. Situation number 2 is clearly better to determine skill, and i didnt cripple mechanics. I dont want stalkers to take more than 30 minutes to go up a ramp (yes, i used to play brood war and that used to piss me off). I think blizzard is slowly taking the correct decisions, and we will soon get there. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
Positioning is almost always better than unit composition. Macro is almost always better than either positioning or unit composition. If AoE keeps wiping out your army all the time, it just means you're not spreading out fast/soon enough. If your opponent constantly is able to get 60+ Banelings, you're not harassing often/hard enough. If you keep dying because both players have reached 200/200 food armies, then stop pretending that you're in a fastest-money-map. The reason that BW has such a seemingly more complex game-play dynamic is because of *years* and *years* and tactics development. Grrr owned everyone when it started simply because he could put a reaver in a shuttle. Boxer took everyone by storm simply because he used a fast unit (vulture) to kill workers and run away. Nada and iloveoov changed the way the game was played as we know it simply because they built supply depots and scvs consistently. Now we have players like Flash and Jaedong who do all those things all at once. Who knows how unit interact, who know exactly how many units are needed at what times. Where they don't think "I'll build as many tanks as I can afford" but instead think "I can hold position A with X number of tanks and Y number of support units." SC2 does not have that preciseness of unit balance since it's still so fresh. There is a reason that a lot of the top SC2 players in Korea are former/switched SC1 pros. Because their mechanics are better. Once SC2 has enough players with the same high end (MVP/egidra) level mechanics, then we will finally start seeing stable players, stable metagames. As for GSL stability; I hope people know that January is really the first official "standard" gsl? The qualifiers last year was so volatile and crazy because it was a wild west shootout and one bad match cost you everything. The actual GSL was just a crap tonne of Bo1 matches before it actually got interesting and one misclick and all of a sudden "top players" are out. The current system is the first attempt at creating a stable base. IMMVP lost 6 out of his last 8 games to be knocked down to code A. 6 losses is a LOT to of chances to give someone. IMMVP was given way more chances to stay in code S than code B players are given to get to code S. The reasons he(IMMVP) lost? Julyzerg redefining (aka copying Kyrix's old playstyle) ZvT cost him 2 games. Then he played against 2 of the best protoss players in the current metagame, his worse matchup. That's too big a handicap to ignore. The metagame is still being explored and tweaked. Unlike SC1 where almost all strategies that would be figured out has been figured out and the main showcasing of skill is who has superior mechanics, micro and macro. SC2 hasn't reached that state yet because it's still too new to think that we've figured out almost all possible strategies and timings. JulyZerg has proven that we don't know the timings as well as we thought we did and the new maps have shown that the matchups are a LOT more balanced than people thought it was when it was in the older (aka as smaller) maps. As both the mapmaking community and the playerbase gets better, the more figured out and balanced the game becomes. It's currently too soon to expect things to be figured out. -------------------------- TLDR Stop whining like bronze players just because your predictions and game awareness is awful compared to SC1 pros. | ||
|
IamBach
United States1059 Posts
On March 18 2011 01:59 whatthefat wrote: I never understand people saying "you just a-move banelings". In most circumstances that is actually the worst possible thing you can do with them. What else do you do with them? The AI tends to find the units themselves better than a human could. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On March 18 2011 02:25 etheovermind wrote: What else do you do with them? The AI tends to find the units themselves better than a human could. A Moving is the reason banelings crash into tanks and thors. Let me put it this way, why don't you play BW and just A move scourge, see how that works for you. | ||
|
Griffith`
714 Posts
Don't even compare the mechanics of scourge cloning to telling banelings to target marines - scourge cloning is about as mechanically difficult as splitting marines. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On March 18 2011 02:25 lorkac wrote: A Moving is almost always the worse option. Positioning is almost always better than unit composition. Macro is almost always better than either positioning or unit composition. If AoE keeps wiping out your army all the time, it just means you're not spreading out fast/soon enough. If your opponent constantly is able to get 60+ Banelings, you're not harassing often/hard enough. If you keep dying because both players have reached 200/200 food armies, then stop pretending that you're in a fastest-money-map. The reason that BW has such a seemingly more complex game-play dynamic is because of *years* and *years* and tactics development. Grrr owned everyone when it started simply because he could put a reaver in a shuttle. Boxer took everyone by storm simply because he used a fast unit (vulture) to kill workers and run away. Nada and iloveoov changed the way the game was played as we know it simply because they built supply depots and scvs consistently. Now we have players like Flash and Jaedong who do all those things all at once. Who knows how unit interact, who know exactly how many units are needed at what times. Where they don't think "I'll build as many tanks as I can afford" but instead think "I can hold position A with X number of tanks and Y number of support units." SC2 does not have that preciseness of unit balance since it's still so fresh. There is a reason that a lot of the top SC2 players in Korea are former/switched SC1 pros. Because their mechanics are better. Once SC2 has enough players with the same high end (MVP/egidra) level mechanics, then we will finally start seeing stable players, stable metagames. As for GSL stability; I hope people know that January is really the first official "standard" gsl? The qualifiers last year was so volatile and crazy because it was a wild west shootout and one bad match cost you everything. The actual GSL was just a crap tonne of Bo1 matches before it actually got interesting and one misclick and all of a sudden "top players" are out. The current system is the first attempt at creating a stable base. IMMVP lost 6 out of his last 8 games to be knocked down to code A. 6 losses is a LOT to of chances to give someone. IMMVP was given way more chances to stay in code S than code B players are given to get to code S. The reasons he(IMMVP) lost? Julyzerg redefining (aka copying Kyrix's old playstyle) ZvT cost him 2 games. Then he played against 2 of the best protoss players in the current metagame, his worse matchup. That's too big a handicap to ignore. The metagame is still being explored and tweaked. Unlike SC1 where almost all strategies that would be figured out has been figured out and the main showcasing of skill is who has superior mechanics, micro and macro. SC2 hasn't reached that state yet because it's still too new to think that we've figured out almost all possible strategies and timings. JulyZerg has proven that we don't know the timings as well as we thought we did and the new maps have shown that the matchups are a LOT more balanced than people thought it was when it was in the older (aka as smaller) maps. As both the mapmaking community and the playerbase gets better, the more figured out and balanced the game becomes. It's currently too soon to expect things to be figured out. -------------------------- TLDR Stop whining like bronze players just because your predictions and game awareness is awful compared to SC1 pros. I made a post similar to this earlier in the thread and it got drowned out. I completely agree with you and it's aggravating trying to get people to understand this. This thread really is dreadful. The player base is complaining about the "lack of skill" required to play Starcraft II when they haven't even scratched the surface of the game and are clearly playing it at a suboptimal level. Yet all of these same people will buy the expansion packs on the first day. It's pathetic. | ||
|
CalvinStorm
Canada78 Posts
| ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
On March 18 2011 02:33 Griffith` wrote: sorry but the apm required to tell banelings to chase after a clump of marines is about 1/10th the apm required to split the marines. It is essentially "a-move" as you need to order one command to the banelings and a-move everything else. If the marines are in a clump, sure. It's as easy to move a bunch of banelings into an a-moved group of marines as it is to a-move the group of marines. If the terran is splitting and microing well, the banelings have to be microed equally well or they will do nothing. | ||
| ||
