On April 17 2011 01:31 buscemi wrote: I have to add that this mentality really bothers me. This thread is full of myopic reasoning and facetious arguments. How can one have a reasonable discussion comparing two games when one game is reduced to a caricature? SC2 is not "1a vs 1a", at least not the SC2 I see on the GSL and TSL and Dreamhack and MLG.
Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players?
I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one.
Yeah, and that's why those players are in the ro16 of the TSL and people who micro smoothly like you are not.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It's early in the game and although they are at "pro level". Are they playing perfectly every single game? No, I've not seen one game of Starcraft 2 where a player has played at the sort of perfection level of standards of the likes of Flash and Jaedong. The game is still being figured out and the metagame is still shifting every single day. There's been new builds in every season of the GSL so far and the game is constantly changing.
I've seen tournament players make plenty of mistakes which is bound to happen at this time in the games life. As this all changes, so will the playstyle and most likely quite a lot of the "pro" players we have now might not even be around this time next year. I would quite happily say that just because the likes of Morrow and Idra were non-korean pros in Broodwar does not mean that they're the sort of players that are excelling at Starcraft 2 right now (and we should not be using them as some kind of benchmark of play for Starcraft 2), they're just the people who are actively in tournaments right now, but that can change very drastically.
Until the game develops, threads like this are in my personal opinion very silly discussions as quite simply the outcome will always be the same. Brood War players will say that Broodwar is better and newer players and people who didn't maybe get the time with Broodwar as much will say the opposite. As a broodwar player myself I personally feel we should be giving the time for the game to develop. Was it going to be perfect when it was first released? No. Starcraft wasn't even a good game until Broodwar and became a progame by complete accident.
Do you really think that people who are making money of the game did not try to hotkey units in different control groups?
I don't see why you have to type a 3 paragraph post to justify anything like that. It's not an exception, I only picked a random game that was being played, but we have seen it over and over in SC2.
Mistakes happen all the time, in BW too. Grouping units together is not "a mistake", or something players forgot to do once or a couple of times.
On April 17 2011 08:04 mahnini wrote: i am interpreting most of the people who say "give it time" to mean the players will figure something out as opposed to "it will be added eventually". if you believe the latter i don't disagree with you.
So are you saying, "give Sc2 time, Blizzard will add the it factor?"
On April 17 2011 01:31 buscemi wrote: I have to add that this mentality really bothers me. This thread is full of myopic reasoning and facetious arguments. How can one have a reasonable discussion comparing two games when one game is reduced to a caricature? SC2 is not "1a vs 1a", at least not the SC2 I see on the GSL and TSL and Dreamhack and MLG.
Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players?
I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one.
It's a fault of the game for allowing 1A armies to be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. Why make multiple control groups of units when you can simply put them all in 1 and attack? If you 1A in BW, you get rolled by the tier 2 AOE units like spider mines, reavers, and lurkers. SC2 just doesn't have units like that besides the siege tank. And surprise surprise, terran are the race everyone considers easymode, because they can just 1A while the others can't if siege tanks are out. The other races need similar units/mechanics.
And watch all those 1A terrans get crushed by infestors, banelings, colossi, and storm. I have never seen 1a armies be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. I have no idea what you're talking about.
How about Thors vs Muta? That certainly punishes poorly controlled mutas.
Also, as I said before, the control groups does not mean he is 1Aing. He could be controlling units individually without control groups. It's not like that's completely unheard of.
All zerg players have lost to 1Aing terran players. You can do just fine 1Aing when you have 30 siege tanks behind you to evaporate everything. Nobody even makes high templar anymore. Why make HTs when you can get colossi which require 4 APM per battle to use. And Infestors usually die after getting 1 fungal growth off (9 range vs 9 range colossi and 13 range tanks). All the games today in the TSL had players 1Aing...
Thors vs muta, literally ONE action and my mutas are properly micro'd against thors. Magic box them once and you're good to go.
Once you have big stupid starcraft 2 armies where you can't even tell what's going on, you're 1Aing to victory. Sure you may be burrowing some roaches under forcefields or something, but they're all in one control group and you're just pressing R twice. I still count that as 1Aing. Same goes for armies with 20 sentries where you can just close your eyes and press F and left click over and over and win.
Exaggerations are cool, bro!
30 siege tanks is 90 supply, sounds a bit far fetched that any terran could mass that amount safely. Colossus needing 4 APM sounds far fetched too. MC made templars against Idra just a few days ago at Dreamhack so that statement is false. Burrowing all roaches isn't really optimal so that's not true either. Claiming that force fields require no though is also blatantly untrue.
Great work making a post exaggerating every single thing you could think of in SC2.
3 factory terran takes 7.5 minutes game time to get 30 tanks... It's not an exaggeration. It happens in every ZvT. Watch some Jinro ZvT games and see what you find. And MC making HTs once in all the games you've ever seen him play means nothing. And I just watched Morrow select ALL his roaches and burrow them in EVERY game he played. Find me a screencap of the games today where he only burrow some of them. You need to burrow all of them to make room for the back ones or they will just unburrow on the wrong side of the forcefield. And forcefields don't require any skill to use at all. My grandma can use forcefield just as effectively as MC.
So 7.5 minutes game time if you produce out of 3 factories constantly, and never lose a single one. I don't think i've ever seen a TvZ where the terran has kept the majority of his tanks alive for the duration of a long game. MC did make templars and they were very effective. Regardless of how you feel about it you're wrong about the fact that noone makes them. Burrow you might be right about but forcefields do require skill as you can easily tell protoss players apart from forcefield usage alone.
On April 17 2011 08:32 infinity2k9 wrote: By the way one thing i almost forgot; all anyone has to do in the micro argument is to post the Flash vs Bisu on HBR video as argument against anything SC2 provides. Cause that is seriously incredible stuff on both sides, like amazing. Probably my favourite game in terms of micro, maybe Jaedong Vs Leta on Outsider being a good second to it (Wraith vs muta at it's best). If you can watch those and still say SC2 is as good i don't know what to say to you to be honest... you're just set in one mindset i guess.
People could argue bias against me but i'd be very very happy to see an RTS video that compares to this: and i'd love to see it whatever game it was.
Day9 said something in one of his videos that back in BW units required different styles of control to be optimal. Some units were best with patrol, others had to attack at certain angles, and other times it was better to just not control the army. It seems that in SC2 1A kind of fits this description. With all of your units moving in a tight ball, they become more resilient to pokes. Also for protoss, a lot of the army is just there to act as a meat shield for the damage dealers (void rays, colossi), so 1A doesn't really hinder them that much. On the other hand I could just be full of crap. I made this post without really thinking too hard about it.
By the way one thing i almost forgot; all anyone has to do in the micro argument is to post the Flash vs Bisu on HBR video as argument against anything SC2 provides. Cause that is seriously incredible stuff on both sides, like amazing. Probably my favourite game in terms of micro, maybe Jaedong Vs Leta on Outsider being a good second to it (Wraith vs muta at it's best). If you can watch those and still say SC2 is as good i don't know what to say to you to be honest... you're just set in one mindset i guess.
People could argue bias against me but i'd be very very happy to see an RTS video that compares to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqsSrWZciY0 and i'd love to see it whatever game it was.
I've played my fair share of SC BW but that video really doesn't impress me. Know why? Cause it's just alot of stuff happening to me. I guess it's very, very hard to do but to me it doesn't look interesting at all.
I believe that it's hard for many non hardcore BW fans to appreciate stuff like the video you posted.
Just to make a comparison, something like this is easy to tell that it's hard as hell and impressive. I just don't feel impressed watching that BW vid.
Your fair share of BW was the campaign? If that level of micro is not impressive, i can't even imagine how you get impressed by sc2.
I'm not saying SC2 lacks any entertainment at all; I've watched many SC2 games and they were enjoyable (although a lot of them moreso because i knew the players involved and had some feelings for or against them). But in BW i'm constantly amazed at the games that happen even this far into it's lifespan. We have games where it's total strategical dominance as well as games where it's totally micro and mechanical dominance. Really deep mindgames in some games to past the point of SC2 so far is, such as faking upgrades.
I've been saying since early beta that positional based units such as lurker and spider mines are ruining a whole map control part of the game... if you're clever about engagements and positioning in BW you CAN beat a superior player. Recently i beat a much better player than me going MnM lategame in TvP. The satisfaction of pulling it off and winning was immense, knowing i managed to do something so unorthodox and win purely because i mechanically could control it well. Now you try a bad unit combo in SC2, you won't even beat a player below your skill level no matter what your mechanics are. Don't people see a difference here?
In another game i managed to hold on in a ZvT simply because of cracklings lategame; If he had all his units in a single control group with smartcasting i would have just lost immediately, game over. But here i managed to whittle down his force piece by piece, countering, cutting off reinforcements, even infesting a CC, barely holding on any way i can until i starved him out. There was constant decision making and micro involved, a careful balance of aggression and defence. I've played SC2 enough to know i wasn't thinking the same things in the games i played, i knew i either won or lost at a certain point and that was it, gg time.
The one thing I really miss in sc2 is zerglings. SC2 Zerglings are so useless compared to their sc1 equivalent and it really makes zvp have a much different feel. They attack absurdly slow and seem to deal 0 damage to anything. Zerglings were a huge part of why PvZ could feel very imbalanced towards the zerg... the issue is twofold, really. Stalkers do extra damage to light, meaning they actually are good vs lings while dragoons vs zerglings is a complete no contest... the ball composition toss are aiming for is just mass stalkers and a few collossus. Zerg has no real answer to this besides a perfect unit composition vs it. It seems to discourage toss from having to think about unit composition - if zerg gets buffed in some fashion, I would really prefer to see lings get buffed as opposed to some weird t3 or t2.5 buff.
.
I will agree that zerglings are definitely weaker in Sc2 than they were in bw. But stalkers don't do bonus to light (do you even play sc2?) and if you have ever watched an equal supply of pure ling vs pure stalker, unless the zerg is engaging in a choke or the stalkers are in a huge clump against a wall or something, the lings will DEMOLISH the stalkers. I think you have some good points but you exaggerate a lot and your not thinking of the other races at all. The reason why toss and terran have to wall in against zerg is because if they didn't every zerg would go 14 gas 14 pool and as soon as that first inject of lings came out they would run into the toss or terrans base and rofl over there small amount of marines/marauders or zealot/stalker/sentry.
On April 17 2011 01:31 buscemi wrote: I have to add that this mentality really bothers me. This thread is full of myopic reasoning and facetious arguments. How can one have a reasonable discussion comparing two games when one game is reduced to a caricature? SC2 is not "1a vs 1a", at least not the SC2 I see on the GSL and TSL and Dreamhack and MLG.
Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players?
I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one.
Yeah, and that's why those players are in the ro16 of the TSL and people who micro smoothly like you are not.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It's early in the game and although they are at "pro level". Are they playing perfectly every single game? No, I've not seen one game of Starcraft 2 where a player has played at the sort of perfection level of standards of the likes of Flash and Jaedong. The game is still being figured out and the metagame is still shifting every single day. There's been new builds in every season of the GSL so far and the game is constantly changing.
I've seen tournament players make plenty of mistakes which is bound to happen at this time in the games life. As this all changes, so will the playstyle and most likely quite a lot of the "pro" players we have now might not even be around this time next year. I would quite happily say that just because the likes of Morrow and Idra were non-korean pros in Broodwar does not mean that they're the sort of players that are excelling at Starcraft 2 right now (and we should not be using them as some kind of benchmark of play for Starcraft 2), they're just the people who are actively in tournaments right now, but that can change very drastically.
Until the game develops, threads like this are in my personal opinion very silly discussions as quite simply the outcome will always be the same. Brood War players will say that Broodwar is better and newer players and people who didn't maybe get the time with Broodwar as much will say the opposite. As a broodwar player myself I personally feel we should be giving the time for the game to develop. Was it going to be perfect when it was first released? No. Starcraft wasn't even a good game until Broodwar and became a progame by complete accident.
Do you really think that people who are making money of the game did not try to hotkey units in different control groups?
I don't see why you have to type a 3 paragraph post to justify anything like that. It's not an exception, I only picked a random game that was being played, but we have seen it over and over in SC2.
Mistakes happen all the time, in BW too. Grouping units together is not "a mistake", or something players forgot to do once or a couple of times.
Actually, I don't think that's a bad point you're making. Of course they've tried, but while their opponents are also 1A'ing, what's the actual point of trying to use more control groups? Also due to the fact there's no really annoying go back to base to move a worker style APM sinks alot of progamers do the majority of their unit control by boxing with their mouse. Just because they've got everything on one control group does not support your argument.
Also I'd like to point out, with Roach/Hydra and Marine/Marauder, why wouldn't you have them on the same control group? Morrow was using Roach/Hydra and because they're both ranged units, and he had no casters, there's actually no reason to have more than one control group.
However for an army with spellcasters and other units like Zealots and Zerglings (other units that work better in melee range like Hellions), that's when you have more than one control group. Broodwar would have been the exact same if it wasn't for the technical limitations of 12 units selected at a time.
On April 17 2011 01:31 buscemi wrote: I have to add that this mentality really bothers me. This thread is full of myopic reasoning and facetious arguments. How can one have a reasonable discussion comparing two games when one game is reduced to a caricature? SC2 is not "1a vs 1a", at least not the SC2 I see on the GSL and TSL and Dreamhack and MLG.
Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players?
I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one.
It's a fault of the game for allowing 1A armies to be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. Why make multiple control groups of units when you can simply put them all in 1 and attack? If you 1A in BW, you get rolled by the tier 2 AOE units like spider mines, reavers, and lurkers. SC2 just doesn't have units like that besides the siege tank. And surprise surprise, terran are the race everyone considers easymode, because they can just 1A while the others can't if siege tanks are out. The other races need similar units/mechanics.
And watch all those 1A terrans get crushed by infestors, banelings, colossi, and storm. I have never seen 1a armies be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. I have no idea what you're talking about.
How about Thors vs Muta? That certainly punishes poorly controlled mutas.
Also, as I said before, the control groups does not mean he is 1Aing. He could be controlling units individually without control groups. It's not like that's completely unheard of.
All zerg players have lost to 1Aing terran players. You can do just fine 1Aing when you have 30 siege tanks behind you to evaporate everything. Nobody even makes high templar anymore. Why make HTs when you can get colossi which require 4 APM per battle to use. And Infestors usually die after getting 1 fungal growth off (9 range vs 9 range colossi and 13 range tanks). All the games today in the TSL had players 1Aing...
Thors vs muta, literally ONE action and my mutas are properly micro'd against thors. Magic box them once and you're good to go.
Once you have big stupid starcraft 2 armies where you can't even tell what's going on, you're 1Aing to victory. Sure you may be burrowing some roaches under forcefields or something, but they're all in one control group and you're just pressing R twice. I still count that as 1Aing. Same goes for armies with 20 sentries where you can just close your eyes and press F and left click over and over and win.
Okay, the siege tank thing confuses me a bit because you usually need to position them correctly lest they be destroyed. I don't really know what you mean by "All zerg players have lost to 1Aing terrans." So? Are you saying you can't 1a2a3a your way to victoray in brood way? I mean war?
Well personally I'll agree with you on the colossus, which is why I think it should be slower than it is right now. Then it would be easier to punish carelessness and there would be more of an advantage of using HTs.
I was actually referring to burrow-micro where you burrow hurt roaches, not where you burrow everything to get under forcefields. We have seen that in ZvZs and are now starting to see it in ZvPs. It's kind of similar to blink-micro.
On April 17 2011 01:31 buscemi wrote: I have to add that this mentality really bothers me. This thread is full of myopic reasoning and facetious arguments. How can one have a reasonable discussion comparing two games when one game is reduced to a caricature? SC2 is not "1a vs 1a", at least not the SC2 I see on the GSL and TSL and Dreamhack and MLG.
Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players?
I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one.
It's a fault of the game for allowing 1A armies to be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. Why make multiple control groups of units when you can simply put them all in 1 and attack? If you 1A in BW, you get rolled by the tier 2 AOE units like spider mines, reavers, and lurkers. SC2 just doesn't have units like that besides the siege tank. And surprise surprise, terran are the race everyone considers easymode, because they can just 1A while the others can't if siege tanks are out. The other races need similar units/mechanics.
And watch all those 1A terrans get crushed by infestors, banelings, colossi, and storm. I have never seen 1a armies be just as efficient as multi-control group armies. I have no idea what you're talking about.
How about Thors vs Muta? That certainly punishes poorly controlled mutas.
Also, as I said before, the control groups does not mean he is 1Aing. He could be controlling units individually without control groups. It's not like that's completely unheard of.
All zerg players have lost to 1Aing terran players. You can do just fine 1Aing when you have 30 siege tanks behind you to evaporate everything. Nobody even makes high templar anymore. Why make HTs when you can get colossi which require 4 APM per battle to use. And Infestors usually die after getting 1 fungal growth off (9 range vs 9 range colossi and 13 range tanks). All the games today in the TSL had players 1Aing...
Thors vs muta, literally ONE action and my mutas are properly micro'd against thors. Magic box them once and you're good to go.
Once you have big stupid starcraft 2 armies where you can't even tell what's going on, you're 1Aing to victory. Sure you may be burrowing some roaches under forcefields or something, but they're all in one control group and you're just pressing R twice. I still count that as 1Aing. Same goes for armies with 20 sentries where you can just close your eyes and press F and left click over and over and win.
Okay, the siege tank thing confuses me a bit because you usually need to position them correctly lest they be destroyed. I don't really know what you mean by "All zerg players have lost to 1Aing terrans." So? Are you saying you can't 1a2a3a your way to victoray in brood way? I mean war?
Well personally I'll agree with you on the colossus, which is why I think it should be slower than it is right now. Then it would be easier to punish carelessness and there would be more of an advantage of using HTs.
I was actually referring to burrow-micro where you burrow hurt roaches, not where you burrow everything to get under forcefields. We have seen that in ZvZs and are now starting to see it in ZvPs.
it's pretty useless during mid/late game battles though. They really need to reduce zerg unit food count for roach and hydras and make them weaker units. preferably smaller units too.
On April 17 2011 01:31 buscemi wrote: I have to add that this mentality really bothers me. This thread is full of myopic reasoning and facetious arguments. How can one have a reasonable discussion comparing two games when one game is reduced to a caricature? SC2 is not "1a vs 1a", at least not the SC2 I see on the GSL and TSL and Dreamhack and MLG.
Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players?
I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one.
Yeah, and that's why those players are in the ro16 of the TSL and people who micro smoothly like you are not.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It's early in the game and although they are at "pro level". Are they playing perfectly every single game? No, I've not seen one game of Starcraft 2 where a player has played at the sort of perfection level of standards of the likes of Flash and Jaedong. The game is still being figured out and the metagame is still shifting every single day. There's been new builds in every season of the GSL so far and the game is constantly changing.
I've seen tournament players make plenty of mistakes which is bound to happen at this time in the games life. As this all changes, so will the playstyle and most likely quite a lot of the "pro" players we have now might not even be around this time next year. I would quite happily say that just because the likes of Morrow and Idra were non-korean pros in Broodwar does not mean that they're the sort of players that are excelling at Starcraft 2 right now (and we should not be using them as some kind of benchmark of play for Starcraft 2), they're just the people who are actively in tournaments right now, but that can change very drastically.
Until the game develops, threads like this are in my personal opinion very silly discussions as quite simply the outcome will always be the same. Brood War players will say that Broodwar is better and newer players and people who didn't maybe get the time with Broodwar as much will say the opposite. As a broodwar player myself I personally feel we should be giving the time for the game to develop. Was it going to be perfect when it was first released? No. Starcraft wasn't even a good game until Broodwar and became a progame by complete accident.
Do you really think that people who are making money of the game did not try to hotkey units in different control groups?
I don't see why you have to type a 3 paragraph post to justify anything like that. It's not an exception, I only picked a random game that was being played, but we have seen it over and over in SC2.
Mistakes happen all the time, in BW too. Grouping units together is not "a mistake", or something players forgot to do once or a couple of times.
are you really arguing that having all your units on one hotkey is the same thing as 1a vs 1a?
I think starcraft 2 is very exciting to watch, more so than BW simply because foreigners can compete against Koreans, and the game is so new it is fun to watch the game grow in strategical play every couple months, or as a new patch comes out watch new builds form.
However, I think that Protoss in general is the most boring and dull race to play, except for TvP, Mass gate way/HT style. Protoss is the race that encourages sitting back, massing for a deathball, and Attack moving your way to victory. I think the problem over all with protoss is the units. I just want the Colossus gone and replaced with another unit to fill it's roll, like the reaver. It was so exciting to watch Reaver's scarabs chase down a group of marines or units and just wipe them out. The colossus is just a dull unit.
On April 16 2011 09:48 lazydino wrote: I guess sc2 is just more noob-friendly. I also think you forgot to mention multibuilding selection.
I have yet to hear a compelling argument against MBS. Did it make the game harder? Yes. Did it do so in a way that required particular skill/made the game more exciting to watch? No. The same thing goes for auto-mining. I have nothing against making the game harder, but SBS and manual mining add an unnecessary difficulty.
Very good point. An esport must be entertaining. Sending units to mine and watching someone select a gateway to make a dragoon over and over isn't entertaining either. People like to see micro, battles, harass, and spell use.
Have you ever watched a bw match? They few ive seen they dont show that...hell i think we see more exciting creep spread in sc2 matches then you ever saw macro happening in bw. The only time you saw macro was when they swapped to the player cam for 10 seconds.
The rest of the time was spent watching flying from battle to battle happening across the map. But you knew in the back of your mind that holy shit hes controlling all these units while macroing, it just added another layer.
where as a zvt watching i know the zerg went 1a for lings. right click for banes behind the army. right click for mutas and then hold position. and then hold down z/t to refill to max while the battle happens.
I guess my point wasn't as clear as it could have been. I was pointing out with MBS and automining they now have more time to do those things that people like to watch.
On April 17 2011 08:04 mahnini wrote: i am interpreting most of the people who say "give it time" to mean the players will figure something out as opposed to "it will be added eventually". if you believe the latter i don't disagree with you.
I think a mixture of both will happen. It will happen faster when the latter happens as well as when players evolve. Blizzard has to be lying when they claim no new units/spells/talents will be added, because if that isn't happening based on this campaign the game has no chance of selling in high volume.
On April 17 2011 01:31 buscemi wrote: I have to add that this mentality really bothers me. This thread is full of myopic reasoning and facetious arguments. How can one have a reasonable discussion comparing two games when one game is reduced to a caricature? SC2 is not "1a vs 1a", at least not the SC2 I see on the GSL and TSL and Dreamhack and MLG.
Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players?
I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one.
Yeah, and that's why those players are in the ro16 of the TSL and people who micro smoothly like you are not.
It might not be my place to say, but is this really worthy posting from a moderator? Seems almost trollish to me, of course he must know that grouping up units by hotkeys is something beneficial in SC2 just as it was in BW.
We still see alot of bad micro and unit control i SC2 and one control group-syndrome is something Tastosis mention when it happens in the GSL. After checking some high level matches i've seen alot of games where the players use at least 2-3 unit hotkeys. Many seem to prefer to box-select their units though, as players like Supernova didn't have all his marines in one control group, but had groups for siege tanks and medivacs.
He's discrediting an argument and blaming the players? I already mentioned it's not an exception. I don't see how saying that it's trollish?
But! Blizzard won't make SC2 mechanically difficult--to them it's a step back, which is logical from a casual perspective.
I agree with this statement. We have to accept it. It would be illogical if they kept those old mechanics. SC2 is designed to appeal a wider target and we all know by now that they succeeded at it. Is true that most of matches of SC2 are not that epic but I have watched some very exciting matches. And yes I will say the game is still very young. It's not fair to compare a Savior vs OOv match vs any match nowadays of SC2. SC2 still doesnt have a Savior nor a OOv.
On April 16 2011 09:48 lazydino wrote: I guess sc2 is just more noob-friendly. I also think you forgot to mention multibuilding selection.
I have yet to hear a compelling argument against MBS. Did it make the game harder? Yes. Did it do so in a way that required particular skill/made the game more exciting to watch? No. The same thing goes for auto-mining. I have nothing against making the game harder, but SBS and manual mining add an unnecessary difficulty.
Very good point. An esport must be entertaining. Sending units to mine and watching someone select a gateway to make a dragoon over and over isn't entertaining either. People like to see micro, battles, harass, and spell use.
Have you ever watched a bw match? They few ive seen they dont show that...hell i think we see more exciting creep spread in sc2 matches then you ever saw macro happening in bw. The only time you saw macro was when they swapped to the player cam for 10 seconds.
The rest of the time was spent watching flying from battle to battle happening across the map. But you knew in the back of your mind that holy shit hes controlling all these units while macroing, it just added another layer.
where as a zvt watching i know the zerg went 1a for lings. right click for banes behind the army. right click for mutas and then hold position. and then hold down z/t to refill to max while the battle happens.
I guess my point wasn't as clear as it could have been. I was pointing out with MBS and automining they now have more time to do those things that people like to watch.
On April 17 2011 08:04 mahnini wrote: i am interpreting most of the people who say "give it time" to mean the players will figure something out as opposed to "it will be added eventually". if you believe the latter i don't disagree with you.
I think a mixture of both will happen. It will happen faster when the latter happens as well as when players evolve. Blizzard has to be lying when they claim no new units/spells/talents will be added, because if that isn't happening based on this campaign the game has no chance of selling in high volume.
See, I don't think you realize the fact that with MBS and automining, everyone can now do those things that people like to watch. There is simply a lack of mechanics in the game that separates a good player from a great player and a great player from someone in the TSL.
See, I don't think you realize the fact that with MBS and automining, everyone can now do those things that people like to watch. There is simply a lack of mechanics in the game that separates a good player from a great player and a great player from someone in the TSL.
I don't agree with this just one bit.
Anyone from Bronze even to people as far as diamond can still have ALOT of trouble with mechanics. There's even varying forms of mechanical players that participate in tournaments. Not everyone can have perfect mechanics, that's just a really silly thing to say. There's plenty of things that seperate a good player from a great player, one example is MC in PvP. Somehow he manages to get all his things about 1-2 seconds faster, that may not seem that much, but that's impressive and nobody that I know of can match him in terms of speed. White-Ra has come close and he's taken games from him, but MC is still a god of PvP. I'd like to see anyone on ladder even come close to doing what MC does.
Of course that's not counting the fact that there's plenty of excellent starcraft players on ladder who just don't want to enter tournaments. Actually, I don't even think I've seen a player who has mechanics to the style that flash did in Broodwar (to near perfection). It's just too early in the game to even begin to see that.
On April 17 2011 01:31 buscemi wrote: I have to add that this mentality really bothers me. This thread is full of myopic reasoning and facetious arguments. How can one have a reasonable discussion comparing two games when one game is reduced to a caricature? SC2 is not "1a vs 1a", at least not the SC2 I see on the GSL and TSL and Dreamhack and MLG.
Surely that isn't the fault of the game, it's the players?
I've found using multiple hotkeys makes battles much easier and it makes unit control much smoother. If people are choosing to use one hotkey, then that's their choice. A good microing player with more than one hotkey will most likely outmicro someone who just uses one.
Yeah, and that's why those players are in the ro16 of the TSL and people who micro smoothly like you are not.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It's early in the game and although they are at "pro level". Are they playing perfectly every single game? No, I've not seen one game of Starcraft 2 where a player has played at the sort of perfection level of standards of the likes of Flash and Jaedong. The game is still being figured out and the metagame is still shifting every single day. There's been new builds in every season of the GSL so far and the game is constantly changing.
I've seen tournament players make plenty of mistakes which is bound to happen at this time in the games life. As this all changes, so will the playstyle and most likely quite a lot of the "pro" players we have now might not even be around this time next year. I would quite happily say that just because the likes of Morrow and Idra were non-korean pros in Broodwar does not mean that they're the sort of players that are excelling at Starcraft 2 right now (and we should not be using them as some kind of benchmark of play for Starcraft 2), they're just the people who are actively in tournaments right now, but that can change very drastically.
Until the game develops, threads like this are in my personal opinion very silly discussions as quite simply the outcome will always be the same. Brood War players will say that Broodwar is better and newer players and people who didn't maybe get the time with Broodwar as much will say the opposite. As a broodwar player myself I personally feel we should be giving the time for the game to develop. Was it going to be perfect when it was first released? No. Starcraft wasn't even a good game until Broodwar and became a progame by complete accident.
Do you really think that people who are making money of the game did not try to hotkey units in different control groups?
I don't see why you have to type a 3 paragraph post to justify anything like that. It's not an exception, I only picked a random game that was being played, but we have seen it over and over in SC2.
Mistakes happen all the time, in BW too. Grouping units together is not "a mistake", or something players forgot to do once or a couple of times.
are you really arguing that having all your units on one hotkey is the same thing as 1a vs 1a?
Im arguing the same thing mahnini is saying. The current unit composition in battles + unit design favours pure DPS combos in battles. Because of that most battles in SC come down to forming a good arc and attacking your opponents and pulling out injured units. While that's not necessarily bad, it gets old fast, at least for me.
Some units take from that type of play (the baneling for example, the tank, etc). But as of now, yeah I'm seeing players 1Aing a lot. Coming out ahead then having map control. Bringing army balls running around the map to engage. There's isn't much spreading around, setting up pushes / contain, except with tanks.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nJxLO.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bp21o.png)
