EPT[May] SC2 General Discussion - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
heist
United States720 Posts
| ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On May 23 2011 06:44 heist wrote: What exactly is the reason for the disparity between real-time and game-time. Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if in-game time followed real time? Because all games are played on the faster setting | ||
|
Nidoa
Canada239 Posts
On May 23 2011 09:00 Blasterion wrote: Because all games are played on the faster setting Of course they are, the real question would be, why isnt the speed of the units on faster, the speed of the units on normal? So then you can play on normal, still with decent speed, and have only one timer instead of 2. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On May 23 2011 09:39 Nidoa wrote: Of course they are, the real question would be, why isnt the speed of the units on faster, the speed of the units on normal? So then you can play on normal, still with decent speed, and have only one timer instead of 2. Because then the speed normal will become slower, there will be no faster, and if there was a faster after that it'd become the new standard of normal which faster than the normal of the faster of the normal. | ||
|
springtree
74 Posts
On May 17 2011 13:34 SDream wrote: I was waiting the May thread to talk about it: Cross-region play could never come for the same reasons Latin America region is segregated from North America region. So, if allowing players to get into other regions for free isn't an option, then I ask, is it possible to allow players to play international games without allowing them to play in another region ladder? Let's say that they make an global/international "region" (just like the public test "region"), but that region doesn't have a ladder, it's for customs only. What bad effect could it have to Blizzard "plans"? I think it could be a solution and maybe we should ask for it more firmly. Futhermore, it would be great to see an ultimate league that have all grandmasters from around the world fighting for the title of "Top X in the world". Then, we'd have a region that only the best of each region would have access to the ladder, so people wouldn't quit their region for the "international" one, but they could also use it for customs. I think that this is a cool idea and I wanted to share here so people could maybe make it even better and maybe one day Blizzard will actually put it in practice perhaps? ^^ (Disclaimer: I haven't read every single post in the May thread to find out if people said this already, so forgive if I'm repeating something.) Alternative idea: Blizzard could sell SC2 "servers". Maybe it sounds nuts, but basically the server itself would act like a client in that it authenticates to Blizz servers, but anyone playing on said server would play with the latency connecting to that server. The biggest issue would obviously be that people would hack the server in no time and have a piracy server/client combo but to most people, ladder is the major reason why they play the game so I doubt it'd hurt Blizz all that much. In return, it would allow LAN's in the pro scene, and it would even make it possible to set up servers "between realms". A server in between EU/KR, KR/NA, EU/NA would give, if simply placed in the right spot, give identical latency to the players, evening out the playing ground internationally. I think this is one of the most important problems in the international community right now. | ||
|
Nidoa
Canada239 Posts
On May 23 2011 09:43 Blasterion wrote: Because then the speed normal will become slower, there will be no faster, and if there was a faster after that it'd become the new standard of normal which faster than the normal of the faster of the normal. That made absolutely no sense to me. All i'm saying is, the only reason faster is standard is because normal is so slow (and cuz Blizz made it default, too, but probably for that). And then you wonder why they made normal that slow. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On May 23 2011 19:46 Nidoa wrote: That made absolutely no sense to me. All i'm saying is, the only reason faster is standard is because normal is so slow (and cuz Blizz made it default, too, but probably for that). And then you wonder why they made normal that slow. Now that I read that myself my head starts hurting... too much to drink yesterday apparently | ||
|
annYeong(o11)
Canada784 Posts
It'd help nerf marines a touch in the early game, because you'd be less able to concentrate your DPS, important for things like ramp busts and whatnot. It'd also give them a buff in the late game when things like splash from tanks and storm needs to be taken into consideration, bigger marines means less of them splashed. Also It's fucking ridiculous that "faster" game speed can't have a normal clock when 99% of starcraft games are played on it. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
But labelling it as 'faster' I think is done from a combined desire to: - use 'normal' in the Campaign as a benchmark (appealing to the single player market) - make tournemant play seem more 'epic' (i.e. a 15 min game being just 10 mins irl (or whatever...)) - curb users' ethusiasm for choosing (or desiring) the maximum speed available even when this leads to a sub-optimal gaming experience It is only on custom maps where users can actually control game speed in multiplayer - Blizzard control it in laddering - and tourney organisers choose 'faster' in their games. 'Faster' is THE speed SC2 is supposed to be played at, Blizzard just seem to choose to measure it in such a way as to mould our relationship to online play in order to appeal to offline as well as online players/viewers. Obviously, I may be missing something, if anyone has a particularly insightful point that I've missed - are know of a publicised explanation from Blizz as to why this is the case I'd love to hear it. xxx EDIT: And the TL searches I've done only brings up the measurement of game time, not the reasons why it is called faster (OK there was one thread but it went badly off topic and was locked) | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
http://www.nasl.tv/Statistics ![[image loading]](http://i52.tinypic.com/jhwpwl.png) | ||
|
ishboh
United States954 Posts
On May 24 2011 04:05 figq wrote: NASL racial stats show SC2 is quite balanced at the moment. I'm impressed! http://www.nasl.tv/Statistics hmmm, even an advantage for zergs! which isn't that much of a surprise to me as there aren't any undeserving zergs in the league imo. whereas there are some 'fame' players for other races (mainly protoss) | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On May 24 2011 04:33 ishboh wrote: hmmm, even an advantage for zergs! which isn't that much of a surprise to me as there aren't any undeserving zergs in the league imo. whereas there are some 'fame' players for other races (mainly protoss) I don't want to start balance discussion or even a discussion over who the best players are, but the best Zergs in world are something like Nestea, July, Idra, Losira, Kyrix, Fruit Dealer and maybe Dongraegu. Of those seven, two are in NASL. Meanwhile the best Protoss are like MC, Naniwa, Ace and Kiwikaki. all of whom are in NASL. Trickster and Inca are probably the best Toss not in NASL. Again, I am no authority on "best players" and I do not claim any of those lists are super accurate and have no desire to debate it, but I do dispute the idea that the NASL got the best Zerg players in the world, but failed to get top Protoss talent. | ||
|
PtatoChip
Denmark3 Posts
I am in a bit of a dilemma. I want to know what race that fits me the best. I know you properly be like: "Dude, what do want to play, play that!" but the problem is that i kinda want to play all races. - I have bad micro( i have to improve that anyways) - I have bad multitasking (being in combat, building units, teching, etc. at the same time, ) - I am good at early aggression. - I am good at counter-"building". What race would you people recommend for me? | ||
|
galivet
288 Posts
The core of my justification is that long macro games feel harder-won than games I win with a quick all-in. If I go on an a spree of early-game all-ins, I can win 30 matches in a night of laddering -- that's a lot of ladder points. On the other hand, if I decide to play a macro-oriented style I only really have time to fit in maybe 8 matches in an evening. To win a match with a quick all-in, you create one advantage at a single point in a match and then the match ends. To win a match with macro, you have accrue many advantages over the course of the match to eventually overpower your opponent. If I all-in ten games in a row, I make ten demonstrations of skill. If I play one macro game where I grind out ten small advantages to win the match, I think that demonstrates a comparable level of skill. The two styles should be able to ladder up at the same rate. As it is I feel that the way that the ladder currently works over-encourages the fast all-in style of play. But that's not the style that makes for the most entertaining games. | ||
|
asperger
Sweden1310 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:28 PtatoChip wrote: Hey guys. I am in a bit of a dilemma. I want to know what race that fits me the best. I know you properly be like: "Dude, what do want to play, play that!" but the problem is that i kinda want to play all races. - I have bad micro( i have to improve that anyways) - I have bad multitasking (being in combat, building units, teching, etc. at the same time, ) - I am good at early aggression. - I am good at counter-"building". What race would you people recommend for me? The only recommendation I can give you is to pick a race and stick to it no matter what until you are at least Diamond. I have a friend who never settles for a race, and just goes by flavor of the month, and I think it's very hard to improve macro and mechanics significantly if you don't sit down and focus on one race (which shows when you look at how my friend has been doing). I guess motivation and learning methods are more important, but I definitely think one race is the way to go for now. | ||
|
Hikari
1914 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:28 PtatoChip wrote: Hey guys. I am in a bit of a dilemma. I want to know what race that fits me the best. I know you properly be like: "Dude, what do want to play, play that!" but the problem is that i kinda want to play all races. - I have bad micro( i have to improve that anyways) - I have bad multitasking (being in combat, building units, teching, etc. at the same time, ) - I am good at early aggression. - I am good at counter-"building". What race would you people recommend for me? Try out each race on the Macro or Die maps. Pretty much every single race require micro and multitasking, and have options for early aggression. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:28 PtatoChip wrote: Hey guys. I am in a bit of a dilemma. I want to know what race that fits me the best. I know you properly be like: "Dude, what do want to play, play that!" but the problem is that i kinda want to play all races. - I have bad micro( i have to improve that anyways) - I have bad multitasking (being in combat, building units, teching, etc. at the same time, ) - I am good at early aggression. - I am good at counter-"building". What race would you people recommend for me? I am not sure how you can be good at early aggression while also being bad at micro. In general I would say Zerg is the race for you, since Zerg tends to be a more reacting race, thus it will play to your strength of counter-"building." Also, Protoss and Terran probably require more micro, particularly in the early game. If you like early aggression then I would say try to get good at Terran since Terran's mule mechanic allows it to have relatively strong one base all-ins, but this would almost surely require getting good at stutter step micro so you would need to improve your micro to do this well. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10382 Posts
Did anyone notice? Reapers now take 2 slots in Medivacs instead of 1.  They are 1 food unit, and are rarely used. What is the point of this?!?! That made absolutely no sense to me. All i'm saying is, the only reason faster is standard is because normal is so slow (and cuz Blizz made it default, too, but probably for that). And then you wonder why they made normal that slow. There's an incentive to always play at a faster speed, because it takes more "skill". So if our Faster now would become the new Normal, the new Faster would be faster than our current Faster, and the cycle could repeat. But I think another reason is simply because of the Campaign thing. Having the timer be the same as real life time would be nice, but all the timings in the game are based off of the game time. I think they should like replace all the times in the game (units, structures, etc.) to display the real time, according to the game speed. Doesn't sound hard, but maybe it is. | ||
|
Gooey
United States944 Posts
On May 24 2011 14:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: REAPER CHANGE - undocumented Did anyone notice? Reapers now take 2 slots in Medivacs instead of 1. They are 1 food unit, and are rarely used. What is the point of this?!?! Huh? You can still load up 8 reapers into a medivac. Even went in game just to make sure, and I can still load up 8. | ||
|
Gigazing
Australia15 Posts
During an engagement, burrow an infestor and send it to the back of your opponents army. Un-burrow and make it neural parasite one of your opponents infestors, then make that infestor neural parasite another enemy infestor and so on, until youve got one big "neural chain" of infestors. What this does is waste alot of energy which means less fungal growths on you! Of course at the moment, this is all purely theorycraft. i doubt itd work in a high level game, but its just something to keep in mind. itd be fun to use against noobs! | ||
| ||
