| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On April 14 2013 10:54 Merkmerk wrote: Fruitdealer won a major tourney when WOL came out, too. The stats don't lie, sorry. Oh, so there just so happen to be 12 fruitdealers in Korea right now. Not that the analogy is good at all in the first place. The stats you are using as a holy grail is tainted and biased. That's all there is to it | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On April 14 2013 13:03 Emzeeshady wrote: The Code A qualifiers have always been a crapshoot. Basing balance off of them is stupid. So far all evidence points to Terran being op. Time to suck it up and admit it buddy. ALL evidence?! WELL THEN! Don't I feel silly for seeing stats that contradict that notion. Guess I'm just silly. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On April 14 2013 06:24 Big J wrote: Nope. He has said quite the opposite multiple times. That in his opinion SC2 is lacking strategy and all cones down to mechanics. Part 1: The "good part" of Brood War are the things which is seen as a bad thing by many new kiddies: 1. The unit selection limit and 2. the movement system. Both of these added together create a sort of "mud" which both players have to wade through. This lessens the difference in skill between both when it comes to unit useage and you have to determine who wins through the correct use of STRATEGY and TACTICS. In SC2 its pure mechanics of managing your resources and gathering up the bigger army at the correct time; since managing an economy and massing up a very tightly and densely focused army is easy in this game the strategy part becomes far less important and is overshadowed by the economy part. Saving your big units in SC2 is a) mostly impossible due to the insane incoming dps and b) too much of a hassle due to the sheer amount of units. That is a shame ... These two things are a big part in why there really is a defenders advantage in BW and the lack of these limitations are a reason why SC2 does not have a defenders advantage but rather has an attackers advantage (through choosing the point of attack with your whole focused army with maximum dps). In addition to this "balancing of the scales" in BW we also have a very important part in that game: 3. There arent as many "critical numbers of units" and in any case the ground units more or less never reach it due to the movement mechanics. The only "easily obtained and managed" critical numbers are obviusly air units because of the easier movement and the ability to stack them, but even that isnt as easy as in SC2 due to the unit selection limit. The gist of it is that the "terrible things" in BW are fighting the true bad guy of gameplay ... critical number.which enables a clump of units to one-shot a big unit really fast and which results in that clump becoming nearly invulnerable. So much for the perception of things ... which should be the other way round, but due to the "newer must be better" mantra in kids heads the old game gets booed to death even if it doesnt deserve it. ---- Part 2: The unit design in SC2 is rather terrible, because it has units which are designed specifically to be more useful in critical numbers. Banelings, Infestors, Void Rays, Colossi, Broodlords are prime example here. In addition there are CROWD CONTROL ABILITIES - which are a HUGE pain for WoW PvP and have been nerfed for that game - which are absolute and without any (reasonable) way to counter them: Forcefield and Fungal. ----- @ETisME We all learned to play BW back in the old days and had fun with it. The point is FUN and you cant really have that in SC2, because a map like BGH does not work due to the focus on MASS production and MASS armies. Too much dps focused on one point is BAD FOR FUN. It is manageable for a competitive game (above a certain skill level), but that is not the primary reason for a game, right? The reason why people are saying that BW is bad is that they have become too lazy to actually learn a game. Good parts to start your girlfriend off are a. the campaign and b. Day[9] daily #65. You need to explain about the "vision, non-vision and alliances during the game" part (which doesnt exist in SC2) before watching this though. The point of playing for fun is MULTIPLAYER (which is a social experience) and not 1v1 (which is competitive). So that would be the right angle to get a girl to play BW. Due to the mass army production and management multiplayer isnt as fun as BW because you cant really defend well against superior forces. The biggest problem with BW today is that it doesnt support Windows 7 or higher ... I failed to get it to work properly and I tried a few things to make it work. This will kill it off eventually unless there is some easy way to fix the color problem. ---- EDIT: An analogy ... BW is a cycle race ... YOU have to WORK, but there is no skill requirement for the game other than being able to ride a bike, just an effort requirement. SC2 is an F1 race ... you need a certain minimum skill or else it is ... - "ooops, I forgot to get detection and die to warped in DTs" - "ooops, I forgot to position (or produce at all) my Marines and Marauders correctly and lose to Baneling bust" - "ooops, I forgot to check for Bunker rushes and I have no units to defend against that" - "ooops, I have no anti-air and there are Banshees / Void Rays in my base" There are simply too many gimmicks which allow for total walkovers ... Forcefielding a ramp, Baneling bust, Warp-in inside the opponents base, ... + Show Spoiler + Just watch THIS to see how I think about the skill requirement for SC2. The "heat in the tyres and grip" part ... Both kinds make for exciting races to watch, but only the cycling race is accessible for everyone (who learned to ride a bike). | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
I had a fair amount of RTS experience going into Starcraft 2. I played Brood War, Total Annihilation, some C&C games, Earth 2140, and mostly a lot of Warcraft 3. The first time I played competitive 1v1 in WC3 I had no idea what to do, I made a Far Seer and chose the Far Sight ability simply to scout my opponent and not be totally in the dark, but of course it left me without any combat ability. Nevertheless, I picked up some rudimentary build orders and principles pretty quickly and I feel like the game was already fun and competitive for me after maybe a dozen games. For Starcraft 2 it was different. I had very greatly anticipated the game, I was quite a fan of Blizzard at that point in time, I've always had a fondness for RTS games, so I had very high hopes. I watched a lot of Day[9] dailies in preparation for the game, I fully intended to invest a lot of time into it so that I could at least join the amateur competitive scene and I started out playing a lot. However it was just frustrating. If anyone watches IdrA's stream occasionally where every second game he is like: "this game is so dumb", I had the same thing, I would keep dying to random things and I had a lot of trouble learning to understand the game. In WC3 you had a couple of units and heroes that you could try to control to the best of your ability and that could interact in many different ways, allowing your creativity to shine. In Starcraft 2 I used the utterly dull Roach/Hydra/Corruptor strategy that plays out the same way every game and it took me forever to figure out all the different annoying timing attacks. I didn't think it was as fun as WC3 as a learning process, so I pretty much quit playing the game seriously a few months in. My problem was that I could do anything I wanted to, I could control all the units, manage all the bases, scout my opponents and so on, yet it didn't really matter, because the game was all about the minutia of learning how to react to different timings. You have so little control over the outcome and it becomes frustrating. It's like I said earlier with the known weaknesses vs unknown weaknesses and the latter being more obnoxious. (not that any of my complaints are original) | ||
|
Ygritte
Austria51 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On April 14 2013 13:23 Rabiator wrote: An analogy ... BW is a cycle race ... YOU have to WORK, but there is no skill requirement for the game other than being able to ride a bike, just an effort requirement. SC2 is an F1 race ... you need a certain minimum skill or else it is ... - "ooops, I forgot to get detection and die to warped in DTs" - "ooops, I forgot to position (or produce at all) my Marines and Marauders correctly and lose to Baneling bust" - "ooops, I forgot to check for Bunker rushes and I have no units to defend against that" - "ooops, I have no anti-air and there are Banshees / Void Rays in my base" There are simply too many gimmicks which allow for total walkovers ... Forcefielding a ramp, Baneling bust, Warp-in inside the opponents base, ... + Show Spoiler + Just watch THIS to see how I think about the skill requirement for SC2. The "heat in the tyres and grip" part ... Both kinds make for exciting races to watch, but only the cycling race is accessible for everyone (who learned to ride a bike). You have it backwards. In order to even play BW at any sort of strategical level, you had to practice a ton. You can't just sit down one afternoon and feel like you have the basics down, or even begin to do what you saw in proleague. This is the same "Formula 1" problem we have, where even getting the car started takes so much effort. Every step of the way of an F-1 race takes not only mastery of the car, but mastery of the track and the drivers on it, and each one is a mountain. SC2 works more like the bike race. You can spend an afternoon or 2 learning the macro, and then you practice a lot. If you get really serious, you look into the subtleties and invest time and effort into getting slightly better every day. Very early on, riding becomes easy, but you employ nifty tricks like drafting and knowing when to lead to gain the advantage. Similarly, early on, macro becomes easy, but you learn nifty tricks to optimize your BOs and tactics to take your opponents on. In a non-confusing way, yes, the hard part about SC2 is the strategical failures of players, which is quite frustrating. However, BW had an incredibly tall and thick barrier of entry just because of the mechanics required to PLAY the game. Once you got there, the only frustration could be with yourself. Then again, only a smattering of players made it to that point outside of Korea. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 14 2013 10:05 plogamer wrote: You misunderstand. After trading well, using medivacs to retreat is viable. But if you don't take things out of context, you'll remember that this whole issue is about retreat in the event of a mis-micro. When you lost a chunk of your army and the enemy is still rather intact, you can't get very far. This is especially true for larger maps. Mutalisks are faster in HotS. Medivac boost won't be enough to make it all the way back to your base if your push is deeper into enemy territory. edit: especially when you consider that tanks have to unseige before being loaded up. it's simply not possible to do so when the enemy gets a good engagement and won't just stand by and watch your tanks unseige and load up. I'm talking of impromtu retreats here, I reiterate. And mutas not having enough dps to take down medivacs is bullocks. Yeah they don't just melt medicavs but they were used to shut down drops in WoL and still used in HotS because drop play is more prevalent with the buff to medivacs. yeah, but that's not terran specific. If you trade badly in a combat as Protoss or Zerg the Terran can just stim move forward and overrun you. If a Protoss trades well he can just blink forward against a zerg and reinforce. That is nothing race specific. If anything, it is the way RTS goes. Trade badly, opponent can press forward. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 14 2013 13:23 Rabiator wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 14 2013 06:24 Big J wrote: Nope. He has said quite the opposite multiple times. That in his opinion SC2 is lacking strategy and all cones down to mechanics. Part 1: The "good part" of Brood War are the things which is seen as a bad thing by many new kiddies: 1. The unit selection limit and 2. the movement system. Both of these added together create a sort of "mud" which both players have to wade through. This lessens the difference in skill between both when it comes to unit useage and you have to determine who wins through the correct use of STRATEGY and TACTICS. In SC2 its pure mechanics of managing your resources and gathering up the bigger army at the correct time; since managing an economy and massing up a very tightly and densely focused army is easy in this game the strategy part becomes far less important and is overshadowed by the economy part. Saving your big units in SC2 is a) mostly impossible due to the insane incoming dps and b) too much of a hassle due to the sheer amount of units. That is a shame ... These two things are a big part in why there really is a defenders advantage in BW and the lack of these limitations are a reason why SC2 does not have a defenders advantage but rather has an attackers advantage (through choosing the point of attack with your whole focused army with maximum dps). In addition to this "balancing of the scales" in BW we also have a very important part in that game: 3. There arent as many "critical numbers of units" and in any case the ground units more or less never reach it due to the movement mechanics. The only "easily obtained and managed" critical numbers are obviusly air units because of the easier movement and the ability to stack them, but even that isnt as easy as in SC2 due to the unit selection limit. The gist of it is that the "terrible things" in BW are fighting the true bad guy of gameplay ... critical number.which enables a clump of units to one-shot a big unit really fast and which results in that clump becoming nearly invulnerable. So much for the perception of things ... which should be the other way round, but due to the "newer must be better" mantra in kids heads the old game gets booed to death even if it doesnt deserve it. ---- Part 2: The unit design in SC2 is rather terrible, because it has units which are designed specifically to be more useful in critical numbers. Banelings, Infestors, Void Rays, Colossi, Broodlords are prime example here. In addition there are CROWD CONTROL ABILITIES - which are a HUGE pain for WoW PvP and have been nerfed for that game - which are absolute and without any (reasonable) way to counter them: Forcefield and Fungal. ----- @ETisME We all learned to play BW back in the old days and had fun with it. The point is FUN and you cant really have that in SC2, because a map like BGH does not work due to the focus on MASS production and MASS armies. Too much dps focused on one point is BAD FOR FUN. It is manageable for a competitive game (above a certain skill level), but that is not the primary reason for a game, right? The reason why people are saying that BW is bad is that they have become too lazy to actually learn a game. Good parts to start your girlfriend off are a. the campaign and b. Day[9] daily #65. You need to explain about the "vision, non-vision and alliances during the game" part (which doesnt exist in SC2) before watching this though. The point of playing for fun is MULTIPLAYER (which is a social experience) and not 1v1 (which is competitive). So that would be the right angle to get a girl to play BW. Due to the mass army production and management multiplayer isnt as fun as BW because you cant really defend well against superior forces. The biggest problem with BW today is that it doesnt support Windows 7 or higher ... I failed to get it to work properly and I tried a few things to make it work. This will kill it off eventually unless there is some easy way to fix the color problem. ---- EDIT: An analogy ... BW is a cycle race ... YOU have to WORK, but there is no skill requirement for the game other than being able to ride a bike, just an effort requirement. SC2 is an F1 race ... you need a certain minimum skill or else it is ... - "ooops, I forgot to get detection and die to warped in DTs" - "ooops, I forgot to position (or produce at all) my Marines and Marauders correctly and lose to Baneling bust" - "ooops, I forgot to check for Bunker rushes and I have no units to defend against that" - "ooops, I have no anti-air and there are Banshees / Void Rays in my base" There are simply too many gimmicks which allow for total walkovers ... Forcefielding a ramp, Baneling bust, Warp-in inside the opponents base, ... + Show Spoiler + Just watch THIS to see how I think about the skill requirement for SC2. The "heat in the tyres and grip" part ... Both kinds make for exciting races to watch, but only the cycling race is accessible for everyone (who learned to ride a bike). A simple "yes, I believe that BW was more strategically focused than SC" would have done it as a reply to my post. Of course you the reasoning for *whateverBWdidbetterthanSC2* is the pathing/selection/designs. You don't need to remind us of that at this point. Not to mention that those are basically the only ingame changes, so the only things that even can make something better/worse. To that other comment of yours about reavers being my prime example. No it wasn't. It was an example amongst many others. (And the fact that you died to a semirandom event doesn't make reavershots less punishing when all your workers are gone) | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
On April 14 2013 18:52 Grumbels wrote: Do you mean the part where he says that if he doesn't go fast enough he will have no heat in the tires and then will crash? Which of course means there is a large barrier before you are able to even able to properly play the game, since you need a lot of driving skill and expertise to drive at those speeds, yet if you don't manage to get there you can't do anything. I had a fair amount of RTS experience going into Starcraft 2. I played Brood War, Total Annihilation, some C&C games, Earth 2140, and mostly a lot of Warcraft 3. The first time I played competitive 1v1 in WC3 I had no idea what to do, I made a Far Seer and chose the Far Sight ability simply to scout my opponent and not be totally in the dark, but of course it left me without any combat ability. Nevertheless, I picked up some rudimentary build orders and principles pretty quickly and I feel like the game was already fun and competitive for me after maybe a dozen games. For Starcraft 2 it was different. I had very greatly anticipated the game, I was quite a fan of Blizzard at that point in time, I've always had a fondness for RTS games, so I had very high hopes. I watched a lot of Day[9] dailies in preparation for the game, I fully intended to invest a lot of time into it so that I could at least join the amateur competitive scene and I started out playing a lot. However it was just frustrating. If anyone watches IdrA's stream occasionally where every second game he is like: "this game is so dumb", I had the same thing, I would keep dying to random things and I had a lot of trouble learning to understand the game. In WC3 you had a couple of units and heroes that you could try to control to the best of your ability and that could interact in many different ways, allowing your creativity to shine. In Starcraft 2 I used the utterly dull Roach/Hydra/Corruptor strategy that plays out the same way every game and it took me forever to figure out all the different annoying timing attacks. I didn't think it was as fun as WC3 as a learning process, so I pretty much quit playing the game seriously a few months in. My problem was that I could do anything I wanted to, I could control all the units, manage all the bases, scout my opponents and so on, yet it didn't really matter, because the game was all about the minutia of learning how to react to different timings. You have so little control over the outcome and it becomes frustrating. It's like I said earlier with the known weaknesses vs unknown weaknesses and the latter being more obnoxious. (not that any of my complaints are original) I don't even understand this complaint. You're saying that you can control your units, manage your bases, scout, etc and still lose but you can't react to timings? That's what an RTS is, it's based around strategy on hitting where your opponent is weakest and gaining advantages based on that and eventually winning the game. Doing everything you're doing, and knowing the timings is what gives you control over the outcome of the game. I don't even know what you're complaining about. And bringing Idra rage in here is dumb, he consistently belittles his opponents and then goes on to lose for whatever reason that doesn't belong in this topic. It's a horrible example. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: I don't even understand this complaint. You're saying that you can control your units, manage your bases, scout, etc and still lose but you can't react to timings? That's what an RTS is, it's based around strategy on hitting where your opponent is weakest and gaining advantages based on that and eventually winning the game. Doing everything you're doing, and knowing the timings is what gives you control over the outcome of the game. I don't even know what you're complaining about. And bringing Idra rage in here is dumb, he consistently belittles his opponents and then goes on to lose for whatever reason that doesn't belong in this topic. It's a horrible example. I'm sorry that I said the word "Idra", I didn't know you were so traumatized you had to insult me for using that word. I don't appreciate you trivializing my experiences. Like I said, I had certain expectations for Starcraft 2 and ultimately it ended up being frustrating for me. I'm not saying that it's the same way for everyone. | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
ESF Protoss is not OP. Terrans are doing all the all-kills in GSTL. This is strange. | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11035 Posts
On April 15 2013 02:08 larse wrote: KeSPA Protoss is so OP. They dominate SPL so hard. ESF Protoss is not OP. Terrans are doing all the all-kills in GSTL. This is strange. Park had a different opinion a few weeks ago. God knows his latest interview and the team selections have to do with proleague maps as much as anything else. | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
On April 15 2013 02:22 Sabu113 wrote: Park had a different opinion a few weeks ago. God knows his latest interview and the team selections have to do with proleague maps as much as anything else. But he mentioned in the interview that Protoss is OP. He didn't say it but he uses statistics. Here I quote from Park: "I looked at the first week’s matches in Proleague and there were 40 Protosses, 25 Zergs, and 19 Terrans that played. You can see that Protosses come out significantly more often" | ||
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
On April 15 2013 02:27 larse wrote: But he mentioned in the interview that Protoss is OP. He didn't say it but he uses statistics. Here I quote from Park: "I looked at the first week’s matches in Proleague and there were 40 Protosses, 25 Zergs, and 19 Terrans that played. You can see that Protosses come out significantly more often" No he didn't. That quote was simply what was happening and only if you want you can look at that and say he said Protoss is OP. | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote: I'm sorry that I said the word "Idra", I didn't know you were so traumatized you had to insult me for using that word. I don't appreciate you trivializing my experiences. Like I said, I had certain expectations for Starcraft 2 and ultimately it ended up being frustrating for me. I'm not saying that it's the same way for everyone. No, what I'm trying to ask you is what you mean by you having so little control over the outcome? It seems to me that you feel that many things that happen are out of your control because they happen in a coinflip, or random manner, despite having all your scouting information, control, etc. If you could clarify, that'd be great. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote: No, what I'm trying to ask you is what you mean by you having so little control over the outcome? It seems to me that you feel that many things that happen are out of your control because they happen in a coinflip, or random manner, despite having all your scouting information, control, etc. If you could clarify, that'd be great. I used to always play with a friend of mine, I think I probably played more games vs him in the last few years than vs everyone else combined. I was a lot better relatively in WC3, I think the final score was something like 37-4, but in Starcraft 2 he could play protoss vs my zerg and alternate between all-ins and then I would die (I still won more games though). The entire game is nothing, it's boring: units that don't require good control or decision making (roach/hydra/corruptor), a new streamlined interface for my opponent to allow him to execute his strategy unimpeded, and then the result is that I either win or lose. It's not interesting. I'll admit this was in 2010, the game has improved since then, but it's still my primary memory from playing and back then the both of us agreed it was lacking compared to Warcraft 3, a game where you have control over the outcome of the game at every step, a game which constantly challenges you to make the best of the situation, which to us made it more engaging. (not that WC3 is perfect) And like I said, look at IdrA's stream, he is good at observing these things. There are so many games where you just win or lose and nothing that's particularly interesting happened, nothing that gives you real control over the outcome. | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote: I used to always play with a friend of mine, I think I probably played more games vs him in the last few years than vs everyone else combined. I was a lot better relatively in WC3, I think the final score was something like 37-4, but in Starcraft 2 he could play protoss vs my zerg and alternate between all-ins and then I would die (I still won more games though). The entire game is nothing, it's boring: units that don't require good control or decision making (roach/hydra/corruptor), a new streamlined interface for my opponent to allow him to execute his strategy unimpeded, and then the result is that I either win or lose. It's not interesting. I'll admit this was in 2010, the game has improved since then, but it's still my primary memory from playing and back then the both of us agreed it was lacking compared to Warcraft 3, a game where you have control over the outcome of the game at every step, a game which constantly challenges you to make the best of the situation, which to us made it more engaging. (not that WC3 is perfect) And like I said, look at IdrA's stream, he is good at observing these things. There are so many games where you just win or lose and nothing that's particularly interesting happened, nothing that gives you real control over the outcome. I'm a Terran player so I don't usually watch Zerg streams, and when I do it's Jaedong's cause I like to fangirl on him. Idra is very smart, but he makes a lot of stupid mistakes, both on stream and during tournaments. There were many games I remember during MLG's, Dreamhacks, etc where the other "patch zergs" would be winning, and Idra would be still giving away mass number of infestors due to bad control. I think your comparison is a bit flawed. Just because you were better at WC3, doesn't mean you're a better player in SC2. The units, while they don't require the same level of control as WC3 (again, different game, just because it's RTS doesn't mean it's the same. 200 supply vs 90(?) in WC3), macro vs micro, roach/hydra/corruptor isn't all just a-move, maybe back in 2010 it was, but these days you NEED to target down important units like sentries, immortals, collossi if you get a chance, etc. When your friend will do his all-in's, that means he's not doing other stuff, or he's cutting something, somewhere, and when you die, it's because you didn't scout enough or didn't exploit it. That means good decision making - and that's having control over the outcome. To me, it's just a telling sign for anyone in 2013 to tell me that they feel like they don't have control over what happens in a game, it tells me that they aren't playing properly, not scouting and def not responding properly to whatever is coming their way. I'm not trying to tell you your experience was wrong, I just think you're applying it improperly to what you want to see. | ||
|
SlixSC
666 Posts
On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote: I used to always play with a friend of mine, I think I probably played more games vs him in the last few years than vs everyone else combined. I was a lot better relatively in WC3, I think the final score was something like 37-4, but in Starcraft 2 he could play protoss vs my zerg and alternate between all-ins and then I would die (I still won more games though). The entire game is nothing, it's boring: units that don't require good control or decision making (roach/hydra/corruptor), a new streamlined interface for my opponent to allow him to execute his strategy unimpeded, and then the result is that I either win or lose. It's not interesting. I'll admit this was in 2010, the game has improved since then, but it's still my primary memory from playing and back then the both of us agreed it was lacking compared to Warcraft 3, a game where you have control over the outcome of the game at every step, a game which constantly challenges you to make the best of the situation, which to us made it more engaging. (not that WC3 is perfect) And like I said, look at IdrA's stream, he is good at observing these things. There are so many games where you just win or lose and nothing that's particularly interesting happened, nothing that gives you real control over the outcome. There is such a huge skill gap in SC2, Koreans are actually dominating Foreigners and it's always the same handful of top koreans who win tournaments, but your argument is that the game is too random and luck-based. So I guess Life winning every tournament he enters is down to luck and not the fact that he's just better than everyone else? Here is the thing, people who blame luck in SC2 are usually the people who don't want to improve. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23770 Posts
I understand what he means. It's not because SC2 is a bad game, but certain matchups at certain times have really boiled down to executing one or two specific styles, with less room to improvise and show your strategical intelligence on the fly. Learning a build order and timing attack that somebody else has devised is not as satisfying to some people as figuring out something cool to do in a game, that kind of improvisational strategy or moment of inspiration. I was pretty bad at Warcraft 3, but one of the things I liked about it was in terms of rewarding the 'better' player than in SC2. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby10523 FrodaN2865 Beastyqt1577 B2W.Neo579 elazer455 shahzam124 Trikslyr80 JuggernautJason60 ZombieGrub55 minikerr25 OptimusSC213 |
|
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
SC Evo Complete
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
