|
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote:
This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
|
On March 18 2011 02:40 skipdog172 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote:
This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem. Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On March 18 2011 02:40 skipdog172 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote:
This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem. Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
I am an advid BW fan, and although I agree that BW might rely less on luck lets not delude ourselves by saying that BO wins don't happen in BW. ZvZ 9speed and PvP DT, 4gate come to mind.
|
On March 18 2011 02:44 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 02:40 skipdog172 wrote:On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote:
This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem. Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'. This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
Actually a big chunk of the best players know when to roll the dice on build order luck even today in BW. Jaedong has 6pooled more than once in a clutch situation to get a build order win. This happens a lot in ZvZ but even so, things like proxies and cheese were what made Boxer famous and also what launched Flash's career.
|
On March 18 2011 02:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 02:44 etheovermind wrote:On March 18 2011 02:40 skipdog172 wrote:On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote:
This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem. Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'. This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that? Actually a big chunk of the best players know when to roll the dice on build order luck even today in BW. Jaedong has 6pooled more than once in a clutch situation to get a build order win. This happens a lot in ZvZ but even so, things like proxies and cheese were what made Boxer famous and also what launched Flash's career.
Im not saying BW wins don't happen.
|
On March 18 2011 02:53 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 02:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 18 2011 02:44 etheovermind wrote:On March 18 2011 02:40 skipdog172 wrote:On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote:
This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem. Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'. This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that? Actually a big chunk of the best players know when to roll the dice on build order luck even today in BW. Jaedong has 6pooled more than once in a clutch situation to get a build order win. This happens a lot in ZvZ but even so, things like proxies and cheese were what made Boxer famous and also what launched Flash's career. Im not saying BW wins don't happen, I'm just saying its possible in BW to come back from a weaker BO.
It's like that in Starcraft 2 also, though it's only ever obvious how to the observers and people watching the game, and rarely the players. (for obvious reasons)
|
On March 18 2011 02:40 skipdog172 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote:
This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem. Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
Actually the opposite is occurring. The build orders are so finely tuned and progamer mechanics are approaching their limits, that it gives less room for one player to outplay another player. Nowadays build order wins are way more common than before since people know the advantages and disadvantages of each build far more.
|
Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes.
Oh I think that's fair to discuss how SC2 could be a better game, but I just don't like the nostalgic fatalist attitude that some people display, pretending that the only way the the game can get better is by mimicking BW, and that Blizzard is bad and the game is never gonna be good, etc.
|
Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes.
Broodwar is a better game. But it IS being retired, playing it at this point serves no purpose. That doesn't mean I lower my expectations for SC2. I expect it to be as good or better than BW. It Isn't yet.
|
On March 18 2011 03:32 mholden02 wrote:
But it IS being retired, playing it at this point serves no purpose.
The game is supposed to be fun! That's why you play it! Are you for real?
|
On March 18 2011 03:22 drcatellino wrote:
Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes.
Oh I think that's fair to discuss how SC2 could be a better game, but I just don't like the nostalgic fatalist attitude that some people display, pretending that the only way the the game can get better is by mimicking BW, and that Blizzard is bad and the game is never gonna be good, etc.
I do play BW. What are you talking about?
|
On March 18 2011 03:32 mholden02 wrote:Show nested quote +Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes. Broodwar is a better game. But it IS being retired, playing it at this point serves no purpose. That doesn't mean I lower my expectations for SC2. I expect it to be as good or better than BW. It Isn't yet.
BW isn't being retired.
|
On March 18 2011 03:32 mholden02 wrote:Show nested quote +Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes. Broodwar is a better game. But it IS being retired, playing it at this point serves no purpose. That doesn't mean I lower my expectations for SC2. I expect it to be as good or better than BW. It Isn't yet.
Unless you're planning to go pro and try to make money on sc2, I don't see why it matters which game you play. There are still plenty of good BW players on iCCup / Fish, and there are tons of great pro BW matches to watch, just as always.
Hell, there's even a small WC2 competitive community around (yes, WC2). Play whatever game you like; who cares whether it's the most common or popular game out there right now.
|
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.
LOL Idra bm!
|
MC is very consistent because he has better mechanics and understanding. The rest (IMO) will have to go up and down because they're on the same playing level as everyone else. Just how it goes. Perhaps there are a few that made mistakes that are near MC's playing level, but those mistakes are what leave MC in a category all by himself.
|
On March 18 2011 04:21 shwick wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote: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. LOL Idra bm!
I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
|
No I'm 100% correct you're 100% wrong. That make sense to you?
Nowhere did the OP say he wanted time to not factor in at all.
On March 18 2011 04:28 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 04:21 shwick wrote:On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote: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. LOL Idra bm! I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
|
On March 18 2011 04:31 shwick wrote:No I'm 100% correct you're 100% wrong. That make sense to you? Nowhere did the OP say he wanted time to not factor in at all. Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 04:28 dogmeatstew wrote:On March 18 2011 04:21 shwick wrote:On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote: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. LOL Idra bm! I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
To continue this jovial exchange, I'm 100% sure you were either unable to successfully click the "show imbeded quote" button or didn't have the attention span to read the contents therein. Nowhere in the quoted text is the OP directly referenced.
|
On March 18 2011 04:28 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 04:21 shwick wrote:On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote: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. LOL Idra bm! I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
The problem is there's too much reliance and focus on the "Real Time" that the "Strategy" part is merely an afterthought.
|
I'm 90% sure I was right.
On March 18 2011 04:35 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 04:31 shwick wrote:No I'm 100% correct you're 100% wrong. That make sense to you? Nowhere did the OP say he wanted time to not factor in at all. On March 18 2011 04:28 dogmeatstew wrote:On March 18 2011 04:21 shwick wrote:On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote: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. LOL Idra bm! I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade. To continue this jovial exchange, I'm 100% sure you were either unable to successfully click the "show imbeded quote" button or didn't have the attention span to read the contents therein. Nowhere in the quoted text is the OP directly referenced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
