|
I really don't think mechanics has anything to do with the so-called skill cap. Players will always find a way to do more with more multitasking. If you look at BW players the mechanical skill gap isn't really that big. I believe Flash even has relatively low APM for a terran, somewhere in the low 300s.
The real problem is the whole blob vs blob thing. Too many games still come down to a giant ball of units running into another ball of units. There need to be more defensive units. Look at protoss in BW. They have no defense-oriented units, like tanks or lurkers or defilers or mines. BW Protoss players inevitably create a big ball to attack and kill shit. PvP in BW is blob v blob, just like sc2. The only difference is bigger maps in BW, something which GSL has tried to replicate with a lot of success, but which for some reason Blizzard refuses to do.
IMO the solution would be pretty basic. Make bigger maps, get rid of the collosus, roach, and marauder. Replace them with defense oriented units. I don't think Blizzard will do this though, because "casuals" apparently like to rush, at least according to Blizzard.
|
On July 14 2011 00:27 Lokian wrote:
nuclear bombs can control a space for a couple of secs, as well as vortexes, forcefields, etc.
The thing is, lurkers, siege tanks, spider mines can all be killed. What is permanent about that. You're describing a category that is not defense nor spell casting. In a sense, every unit has a certain amount of 'controlling space and positioning.' but when you're using lurkers, siege tanks, spidermines it means you want to surprise your enemy using traps. so ima assume that's what is meant by 'controlling space and positioning' lol
in sc2, what kind of units can utilize the role of trapping an army without spellcasting? burrowed bannelings. Dts. ghosts. You can rule out Dts and ghosts since what you're probably wanting is static defense that can trap units, which doesn't even matter IMO.
burrowed bannelings. Burrowed anything. umm... point defense drone?
You're still missing the point: mines, siege tanks and lurkers were mostly used TO HOLD A POSITION ON THE MAP.
You litterally took a position and said, well for a given amount of time you can't go there without suffering subsequent losses.
Sure there is lurker trap mine draging etc but that's some tactics not the strategic fundamental of said matchups.
Again FF or vortex doesn't serve the same purpose...
baneling landmines are good area controling units, also spines arent static, anyone remember nesteas nexus snipe with spines?
Yes of course PvZ revolve mainly around spines rush...
Spines contain are really common, aren't they?
|
I think a lot of the OP is intellectually dishonest.
-bit about non koreans being able to compete with koreans after only 1 year but couldn't after 12 in BW.
That isn't even analogous. Non Koreans could complete with Koreans within the first year of Starcraft.. The gap didn't happen until Korea became the mecca and its proscene developed. There was none of this outside of Korea. Now with SC2 each area Korea/Non Korea has a developing and thriving proscene, of course Korea is still practicing and the infrastructure and playbook is already further along as they've learned lessons from BW.
-if a player is out of position for a moment a great player can lose to someone because units kill efficiently and easily-
Ok.. so you dont think if a great BW player left his army out of position against any decent starleague player the starleague player would smash the army? In both games making minor errors can cost you games.
As for the rest of it.. yes sc2 is less mechanically demanding to do basic functions such as harvest or build units. However, I haven't seen any substantial or empirical proof why this is 'bad' or will make sc2 any less skillful. The game hasn't even hit 1 year old yet. Do you think people were playing much better when SC1/BW was first released?
|
On July 14 2011 00:32 IGotPlayguuu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:27 Lokian wrote:
nuclear bombs can control a space for a couple of secs, as well as vortexes, forcefields, etc.
The thing is, lurkers, siege tanks, spider mines can all be killed. What is permanent about that. You're describing a category that is not defense nor spell casting. In a sense, every unit has a certain amount of 'controlling space and positioning.' but when you're using lurkers, siege tanks, spidermines it means you want to surprise your enemy using traps. so ima assume that's what is meant by 'controlling space and positioning' lol
in sc2, what kind of units can utilize the role of trapping an army without spellcasting? burrowed bannelings. Dts. ghosts. You can rule out Dts and ghosts since what you're probably wanting is static defense that can trap units, which doesn't even matter IMO.
burrowed bannelings. Burrowed anything. umm... point defense drone?
No. No. No. Mine were used to SLOW down the opponent, giving you the time to reinforce your army. In BW TvP, mines forced the P to use observer to clear those nasty mine, and it didn't required 2 seconds. In SC2 is like "lolololol I caught you in a bad position" and 2 secs later is like "oh, where is your army now? I guess it's time to rape your bases" And I'm sad for this thing, because I follow more SC2 than BW, and I would really like that SC2 will surpass BW one day. Because it's not a bad game.
whats so incredibly skillful of placing down spider mines again? Positioning right? It's basically, everywhere on the map in progaming these days.
If you want units that can slow down armies. how about sentries blocking ramps?
The only difference is that you have to be more skillful to put down forcefields than put down mines and leave.
And forcefield don't even last that long. There's tons of abilities that can slow down armies. Even armies can slow down armies by clashes. Marauders even have slowing and ppl hate that unit.
again there's auto turrets, and point defense drone...
sc2 didn't want to make them permanent i guess. but for what reason? I wonder why... maybe because they think spidermines aren't fun?
|
i agree with the essay statement. but i dont think your conclusion is true ,o r even based on evidence.
if you eliminate huge mechanical skills from the equation , you just leave ALL THE REST and not even that,you leave the things that are truly important (at least for me) i prefer wathcing a player who has great taktiks , map awereness, understands the flow of the game, can micro really good, is smart, etc.. instead than a guy that just is mechanically perfect , to be a BW bonjwa you had to combine ALL , for SC2 you dont require so much mechanics.. i dont think that will change the ammount of playres or time they dominate.. the smarter and "better" % of players will be the bonjwas.. and the rest great players.. etc.. just with mechanics out of the equation
i dont know much about BW .. but Nada is always refered to as a macro god , LETS PRETEND HE WAS ONLY A MACRO BEAST FOR THE SAKE OF THE EXAMPLE.. he was a BW bonjwa but well , id much rather watch Nestea do his thing..the guy is fucking detective Genius.. remember that spine scrawler rush? that was amazing he won the game with strategy and wits..instead of fast fingers
|
On July 14 2011 00:36 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:27 Lokian wrote:
nuclear bombs can control a space for a couple of secs, as well as vortexes, forcefields, etc.
The thing is, lurkers, siege tanks, spider mines can all be killed. What is permanent about that. You're describing a category that is not defense nor spell casting. In a sense, every unit has a certain amount of 'controlling space and positioning.' but when you're using lurkers, siege tanks, spidermines it means you want to surprise your enemy using traps. so ima assume that's what is meant by 'controlling space and positioning' lol
in sc2, what kind of units can utilize the role of trapping an army without spellcasting? burrowed bannelings. Dts. ghosts. You can rule out Dts and ghosts since what you're probably wanting is static defense that can trap units, which doesn't even matter IMO.
burrowed bannelings. Burrowed anything. umm... point defense drone?
You're still missing the point: mines, siege tanks and lurkers were mostly used TO HOLD A POSITION ON THE MAP. You litterally took a position and said, well for a given amount of time you can't go there without suffering subsequent losses. Sure there is lurker trap mine draging etc but that's some tactics not the strategic fundamental of said matchups. Again FF or vortex doesn't serve the same purpose... Show nested quote + baneling landmines are good area controling units, also spines arent static, anyone remember nesteas nexus snipe with spines? Yes of course PvZ revolve mainly around spines rush... Spines contain are really common, aren't they?
what are you reading in my post?
I just said that, like lurkers, spines arent static. they have to be set up like lurkers too. also Sen used them to control areas against MC, so what did you not understand?
|
I think it's way too early to talk about bonjwa right now, give it some time
User was warned for this post
|
On July 14 2011 00:27 Lokian wrote:
nuclear bombs can control a space for a couple of secs, as well as vortexes, forcefields, etc.
The thing is, lurkers, siege tanks, spider mines can all be killed. What is permanent about that. You're describing a category that is not defense nor spell casting. In a sense, every unit has a certain amount of 'controlling space and positioning.' but when you're using lurkers, siege tanks, spidermines it means you want to surprise your enemy using traps. so ima assume that's what is meant by 'controlling space and positioning' lol
in sc2, what kind of units can utilize the role of trapping an army without spellcasting? burrowed bannelings. Dts. ghosts. You can rule out Dts and ghosts since what you're probably wanting is static defense that can trap units, which doesn't even matter IMO.
burrowed bannelings. Burrowed anything. umm... point defense drone?
The difference is that they do so efficiently. They can cause a lot more damage compared to what they cost but they don't leave an opponent completely helpless and having to wait them out. If the sentry's forcefields have hitpoints, they can simulate the effect somewhat. Burrowed banelings can be like spider mines but they are prohibitively expensive and you can't spread them around the map.
They are not just used for trapping, though trapping is one of their biggest uses. They are also used for slowing down the enemy advance by forcing your opponent to either slowly clear them or take huge losses trying to rush them. See how easy it is to rush sieged tanks in SC2 compared to BW. You can't do that in BW because strategically placed spider mines can destroy huge chunks of your army.
What makes these units important is that they can be used to guard chokepoints or far off third, fourth, etc. bases without weakening your main army too much. It lets one player attack an expansion without the other player simply waltzing in and destroying one of his expansions in response. A few of these things can massively slow down the opposing army and let your army come back to defend.
|
On July 14 2011 00:43 Miefer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:36 Kanku wrote:On July 14 2011 00:27 Lokian wrote:
nuclear bombs can control a space for a couple of secs, as well as vortexes, forcefields, etc.
The thing is, lurkers, siege tanks, spider mines can all be killed. What is permanent about that. You're describing a category that is not defense nor spell casting. In a sense, every unit has a certain amount of 'controlling space and positioning.' but when you're using lurkers, siege tanks, spidermines it means you want to surprise your enemy using traps. so ima assume that's what is meant by 'controlling space and positioning' lol
in sc2, what kind of units can utilize the role of trapping an army without spellcasting? burrowed bannelings. Dts. ghosts. You can rule out Dts and ghosts since what you're probably wanting is static defense that can trap units, which doesn't even matter IMO.
burrowed bannelings. Burrowed anything. umm... point defense drone?
You're still missing the point: mines, siege tanks and lurkers were mostly used TO HOLD A POSITION ON THE MAP. You litterally took a position and said, well for a given amount of time you can't go there without suffering subsequent losses. Sure there is lurker trap mine draging etc but that's some tactics not the strategic fundamental of said matchups. Again FF or vortex doesn't serve the same purpose... baneling landmines are good area controling units, also spines arent static, anyone remember nesteas nexus snipe with spines? Yes of course PvZ revolve mainly around spines rush... Spines contain are really common, aren't they? what are you reading in my post? I just said that, like lurkers, spines arent static. they have to be set up like lurkers too. also Sen used them to control areas against MC, so what did you not understand?
That's a bad exemple because spines are defensive by nature because you have to be on creep to use them so they are not really area control units
|
On July 13 2011 23:53 sluggaslamoo wrote:Huh? Bomber is 23, Nsp_Fancy? Never heard of him. Puma turns 20 on the 23rd. I only remember him because of Nal_ra's documentary. I might have briefly seen his name a couple of times on proleague. He is probably the best player to move across to SC2 besides MVP, but hes barely an A-teamer, barely. Flash just turned 19, 1 week ago. So what's this about promising up and comers in BW? 
Ha, true.
I meant up-and-comers more in that they've burst onto the StarCraft 2 scene recently and are only now starting to challenge the players who've been dominating it for a while (MVP, Nestea, MC). Didnt realize Bomber was 23 already though.
|
On July 14 2011 00:46 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:43 Miefer wrote:On July 14 2011 00:36 Kanku wrote:On July 14 2011 00:27 Lokian wrote:
nuclear bombs can control a space for a couple of secs, as well as vortexes, forcefields, etc.
The thing is, lurkers, siege tanks, spider mines can all be killed. What is permanent about that. You're describing a category that is not defense nor spell casting. In a sense, every unit has a certain amount of 'controlling space and positioning.' but when you're using lurkers, siege tanks, spidermines it means you want to surprise your enemy using traps. so ima assume that's what is meant by 'controlling space and positioning' lol
in sc2, what kind of units can utilize the role of trapping an army without spellcasting? burrowed bannelings. Dts. ghosts. You can rule out Dts and ghosts since what you're probably wanting is static defense that can trap units, which doesn't even matter IMO.
burrowed bannelings. Burrowed anything. umm... point defense drone?
You're still missing the point: mines, siege tanks and lurkers were mostly used TO HOLD A POSITION ON THE MAP. You litterally took a position and said, well for a given amount of time you can't go there without suffering subsequent losses. Sure there is lurker trap mine draging etc but that's some tactics not the strategic fundamental of said matchups. Again FF or vortex doesn't serve the same purpose... baneling landmines are good area controling units, also spines arent static, anyone remember nesteas nexus snipe with spines? Yes of course PvZ revolve mainly around spines rush... Spines contain are really common, aren't they? what are you reading in my post? I just said that, like lurkers, spines arent static. they have to be set up like lurkers too. also Sen used them to control areas against MC, so what did you not understand? That's a bad exemple because spines are defensive by nature because you have to be on creep to use them so they are not really area control units
you can use overlord creep. I mean everyone say sc2 is too easy. then it shouldnt be a problem to use spines and creep spread to conquer and secure a map...
|
Just a few ideas (Not 100% sure on them, just wanted to sound them out)
1) Part of my hope with SC2 is that with the mechanics ceiling being lowered, strategy and tactics would be vastly more important and the game would balance that way. Unfortunately it hasn't, so the question is why? We used to think it was the absurd Blizzard maps like Steepes of War that was holding it back, since small map size allows stay-in-your-base-then-a-move-to-his-base-then-ready syndrome. However, even with large map size, this still exists. I think this is because less bases are required (because of improved worker mineral mining AI). Especially for protoss/zerg. Can you imagine getting 200/200 armies from 2/3 bases in BW? BW forced you to get many bases potentially spread out over the map to get a decent army. And with that many bases, as a defender, you have to decide, do I ball my army in 1 central location to be able to reach them all? Do I ball them at the most important base? Do I split force to defend several bases? Do I forget defending and use aggression to defend? And as an attacker, you have just as many tactical possibilities, since your opponent should also have many bases spread across the map.
Not saying this doesn't exist in SC2, but it's far less. Look at most games on Tal'Darim, which is supposed to be the best SC2 macro map. Most games are still 2-3 base and 2-3 base, and those bases are spread at all. Or at least, not in the same way that there were spread on BW maps. So either new maps are needed or... maybe bases need to have less mineral patches, to force 4-6 base (5-7 for Z) base play? Or, if I could change the programming, I would have workers take 25-33% more time to mine. That would mean that worker mining would start to lose efficiency at 8 miners per base, instead of 16. You could still build more, but it's not as (long-term) effective as getting another base. Because getting more bases is supposed to be one of the key risk vs reward decisions of any RTS -- forcing that more often in SC2 would be awesome.
2) Even in BW, macro was only generally > micro. In SC2, macro >>>> micro. When I theorycrafted about using the roach, I would often think "Wouldn't it be badass if pros did crazy burrow/unborrow micro with them?" Is this possible? Yes, and the AI does it all the time. So why don't pros? Because who in their right mind would use that much APM/screen focus to save 5-6 roaches when you have larva to spawn, creep to spread, extractors to build, upgrades to start, supply to maintain, and, of course, units to build. This also goes back to the "units dying too fast micro doesn't do as much" idea that's already been tossed around.
|
There's a reason why there are players who dominate the playing field.
There are reasons why We have three two time GSL champions(NesTea, MVP, MC).
These players are a "primeval " form of the Stork-Bisu-Flash-Jaedong dominance that occurred after Saviors fall. These players outshine the rest of the player pack, and the skill difference is noticable to anyone. Watching Nestea nearly come back after losing his third to a 6 gate push was incredible. Watching MC hold his own, and win, against the neverending agression that Puma unleashed was astounding. The only reason they did so well is because they were better. And they can still GET better.
Like all legends, the myth that SC2 has a low skill cap has a grain of salt. Is it easier than Broodwar? Yes, without a doubt. In fact, I do believe that SC2 will become more focused on micro and strategy when players reach their true macro potential. But we're not going to reach it anytime soon. Not for at least 2 years, and that's if there weren't going to be any expansions to add new details.
Marine splits. Hellion control. Mutli prong drops. Ghost control. High templar control. Blink micro. Muta micro. Surround skill. The multitude of race interaction that echoes of Broodwar(Trying to snipe the HT before he can feedback you before you can EMP his army.....) Zergling baneling vs zerglings baneling. Reacting to overlords that drop banelings to one shot your probes. Perfect Forcefields. Harassment of all kinds.
Just because it's not SCBW difficulty does not mean that Starcraft 2 is simple. Or that its skill cap can be reached. Even when players reach the limit of mechanical perfect(and that will be very few), then strategy will reign supreme, just like in SCBW. Sure strategy may take a more prevalent role, but is that really a bad thing?
|
On July 14 2011 00:44 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:27 Lokian wrote:
nuclear bombs can control a space for a couple of secs, as well as vortexes, forcefields, etc.
The thing is, lurkers, siege tanks, spider mines can all be killed. What is permanent about that. You're describing a category that is not defense nor spell casting. In a sense, every unit has a certain amount of 'controlling space and positioning.' but when you're using lurkers, siege tanks, spidermines it means you want to surprise your enemy using traps. so ima assume that's what is meant by 'controlling space and positioning' lol
in sc2, what kind of units can utilize the role of trapping an army without spellcasting? burrowed bannelings. Dts. ghosts. You can rule out Dts and ghosts since what you're probably wanting is static defense that can trap units, which doesn't even matter IMO.
burrowed bannelings. Burrowed anything. umm... point defense drone?
The difference is that they do so efficiently. They can cause a lot more damage compared to what they cost but they don't leave an opponent completely helpless and having to wait them out. If the sentry's forcefields have hitpoints, they can simulate the effect somewhat. Burrowed banelings can be like spider mines but they are prohibitively expensive and you can't spread them around the map. They are not just used for trapping, though trapping is one of their biggest uses. They are also used for slowing down the enemy advance by forcing your opponent to either slowly clear them or take huge losses trying to rush them. See how easy it is to rush sieged tanks in SC2 compared to BW. You can't do that in BW because strategically placed spider mines can destroy huge chunks of your army. What makes these units important is that they can be used to guard chokepoints or far off third, fourth, etc. bases without weakening your main army too much. It lets one player attack an expansion without the other player simply waltzing in and destroying one of his expansions in response. A few of these things can massively slow down the opposing army and let your army come back to defend.
you have planetary and spine and spores, which dont need supply and protoss has cannons and warp ins
|
On July 13 2011 23:46 Kanku wrote:
That's actually the reason I feel BW has more strategic depth.
The lack of area controlling units (such as lurker, vulture or even "good" siege tanks) is a big problem concerning the complexity of an RTS game I feel and tend to encourage blob vs blob battles...
TvT doesnt seem to encourage blob vs blob play, and the former Sc 1 pros seem to have a massive advantage in this match-up due to superior positional sense.
TvZ also is very micro-intensive and not simply just blob vs blob.
Given time and maybe some new units the other match-ups will develop too.
|
On July 14 2011 00:36 crms wrote:
I think a lot of the OP is intellectually dishonest.
-bit about non koreans being able to compete with koreans after only 1 year but couldn't after 12 in BW.
That isn't even analogous. Non Koreans could complete with Koreans within the first year of Starcraft.. The gap didn't happen until Korea became the mecca and its proscene developed. There was none of this outside of Korea. Now with SC2 each area Korea/Non Korea has a developing and thriving proscene, of course Korea is still practicing and the infrastructure and playbook is already further along as they've learned lessons from BW.
All I said was that non-Koreans seem more competitive in SC2 than BW. You can throw out the first couple years of BW; nobody really played the game the way RTS are played today.
-if a player is out of position for a moment a great player can lose to someone because units kill efficiently and easily-
Ok.. so you dont think if a great BW player left his army out of position against any decent starleague player the starleague player would smash the army? In both games making minor errors can cost you games.
Yes, but in BW armies are harder to control. Which gives a good player has more time and space to set up his units, so it is less likely that the good player ends up in a terrible spot. A bad player won't smash a good player as quickly in BW as it happens in SC2.
As for the rest of it.. yes sc2 is less mechanically demanding to do basic functions such as harvest or build units. However, I haven't seen any substantial or empirical proof why this is 'bad' or will make sc2 any less skillful. The game hasn't even hit 1 year old yet. Do you think people were playing much better when SC1/BW was first released?
I certainly never said SC2 was bad. I said people will reach the best levels of play more quickly and there will be more "best" players than BW ever had, so the game won't have the same level of excitment to watch. It was much cooler watching a game of a guy that everyone thought was unbeatable. I'm not sure we'll see an "unbeatable" SC2 player. That's all.
|
On July 14 2011 00:52 Spitfire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 23:46 Kanku wrote:
That's actually the reason I feel BW has more strategic depth.
The lack of area controlling units (such as lurker, vulture or even "good" siege tanks) is a big problem concerning the complexity of an RTS game I feel and tend to encourage blob vs blob battles...
TvT doesnt seem to encourage blob vs blob play, and the former Sc 1 pros seem to have a massive advantage in this match-up due to superior positional sense. TvZ also is very micro-intensive and not simply just blob vs blob. Given time and maybe some new units the other match-ups will develop too.
Yes I say so in one of my posts and you're actually proving my point...
you can use overlord creep. I mean everyone say sc2 is too easy. then it shouldnt be a problem to use spines and creep spread to conquer and secure a map...
Are you really trying to compare the effectiveness of spines with lurkers???
Lurker were usefull because you could hold a piece of terrain with minimal amount of ressources.
That's not the case with spines.
|
On July 14 2011 00:53 aimless wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:36 crms wrote:
I think a lot of the OP is intellectually dishonest.
-bit about non koreans being able to compete with koreans after only 1 year but couldn't after 12 in BW.
That isn't even analogous. Non Koreans could complete with Koreans within the first year of Starcraft.. The gap didn't happen until Korea became the mecca and its proscene developed. There was none of this outside of Korea. Now with SC2 each area Korea/Non Korea has a developing and thriving proscene, of course Korea is still practicing and the infrastructure and playbook is already further along as they've learned lessons from BW. All I said was that non-Koreans seem more competitive in SC2 than BW. You can throw out the first couple years of BW; nobody really played the game the way RTS are played today. Show nested quote +-if a player is out of position for a moment a great player can lose to someone because units kill efficiently and easily-
Ok.. so you dont think if a great BW player left his army out of position against any decent starleague player the starleague player would smash the army? In both games making minor errors can cost you games. Yes, but in BW armies are harder to control. Which gives a good player has more time and space to set up his units, so it is less likely that the good player ends up in a terrible spot. A bad player won't smash a good player as quickly in BW as it happens in SC2. Show nested quote +As for the rest of it.. yes sc2 is less mechanically demanding to do basic functions such as harvest or build units. However, I haven't seen any substantial or empirical proof why this is 'bad' or will make sc2 any less skillful. The game hasn't even hit 1 year old yet. Do you think people were playing much better when SC1/BW was first released? I certainly never said SC2 was bad. I said people will reach the best levels of play more quickly and there will be more "best" players than BW ever had, so the game won't have the same level of excitment to watch. It was much cooler watching a game of a guy that everyone thought was unbeatable. I'm not sure we'll see an "unbeatable" SC2 player. That's all.
one player dominating everything isnt exciting for me. I mean if I already know the outcome of the game, why should I care to watch? Its more fun if there is a chance to win also for the underdog, like Sen vs MC. In soccer for example the german Bundesliga is more fun to wach then the spanish Primera Division where only 2 teams dominate the whole league. In Bundesliga you have more teams that have a chance to win the championship.
|
On July 14 2011 01:00 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:52 Spitfire wrote:On July 13 2011 23:46 Kanku wrote:
That's actually the reason I feel BW has more strategic depth.
The lack of area controlling units (such as lurker, vulture or even "good" siege tanks) is a big problem concerning the complexity of an RTS game I feel and tend to encourage blob vs blob battles...
TvT doesnt seem to encourage blob vs blob play, and the former Sc 1 pros seem to have a massive advantage in this match-up due to superior positional sense. TvZ also is very micro-intensive and not simply just blob vs blob. Given time and maybe some new units the other match-ups will develop too. Yes I say so in one of my posts and you're actually proving my point... Show nested quote +
you can use overlord creep. I mean everyone say sc2 is too easy. then it shouldnt be a problem to use spines and creep spread to conquer and secure a map...
Are you really trying to compare the effectiveness of spines with lurkers??? Lurker were usefull because you could hold a piece of terrain with minimal amount of ressources. That's not the case with spines.
spines dont need supply, so you can get bigger armys. also spines only cost minerals and zergs generally lacks on gas and have plenty of overmins
|
On July 14 2011 01:02 Miefer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:53 aimless wrote:On July 14 2011 00:36 crms wrote:
I think a lot of the OP is intellectually dishonest.
-bit about non koreans being able to compete with koreans after only 1 year but couldn't after 12 in BW.
That isn't even analogous. Non Koreans could complete with Koreans within the first year of Starcraft.. The gap didn't happen until Korea became the mecca and its proscene developed. There was none of this outside of Korea. Now with SC2 each area Korea/Non Korea has a developing and thriving proscene, of course Korea is still practicing and the infrastructure and playbook is already further along as they've learned lessons from BW. All I said was that non-Koreans seem more competitive in SC2 than BW. You can throw out the first couple years of BW; nobody really played the game the way RTS are played today. -if a player is out of position for a moment a great player can lose to someone because units kill efficiently and easily-
Ok.. so you dont think if a great BW player left his army out of position against any decent starleague player the starleague player would smash the army? In both games making minor errors can cost you games. Yes, but in BW armies are harder to control. Which gives a good player has more time and space to set up his units, so it is less likely that the good player ends up in a terrible spot. A bad player won't smash a good player as quickly in BW as it happens in SC2. As for the rest of it.. yes sc2 is less mechanically demanding to do basic functions such as harvest or build units. However, I haven't seen any substantial or empirical proof why this is 'bad' or will make sc2 any less skillful. The game hasn't even hit 1 year old yet. Do you think people were playing much better when SC1/BW was first released? I certainly never said SC2 was bad. I said people will reach the best levels of play more quickly and there will be more "best" players than BW ever had, so the game won't have the same level of excitment to watch. It was much cooler watching a game of a guy that everyone thought was unbeatable. I'm not sure we'll see an "unbeatable" SC2 player. That's all. one player dominating everything isnt exciting for me. I mean if I already know the outcome of the game, why should I care to watch? Its more fun if there is a chance to win also for the underdog, like Sen vs MC. In soccer for example the german Bundesliga is more fun to wach then the spanish Primera Division where only 2 teams dominate the whole league. In Bundesliga you have more teams that have a chance to win the championship. *
You never watched BW do you?
In BW what was really exciting was the fact that one era of dominance succeded an other one.
The fact that Oov who looked invicible in TvZ was suddenly stomped by sAviOr, that sAviOr who was the best player ever at the time had been totally outclassed by Bisu and so on...
spines dont need supply, so you can get bigger armys. also spines only cost minerals and zergs generally lacks on gas and have plenty of overmins
Yeah maybe in late game but i doubt that zerg players really want to hold certain positions in mid game with spines
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
