|
On April 15 2013 03:41 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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.
I was a better player in Starcraft 2. I'm hardly awful, I did get to masters during the one time I really practiced and in the case of me playing versus my friend, I did eventually end up winning most games. The problem was that the learning process was frustrating. I mentioned initially losing to all-ins because to me they illustrate a weakness of the game: someone does a strategy you're unfamiliar with and then you die, no matter the level of execution. Developing as a player becomes largely an exercise in masochism and patience, because it's mostly about teaching yourself to recognize all the various timings and builds in the game. It's frustrating to have all your work go to waste simply because you failed to account for some timing. This is unlike Warcraft 3 and Brood War, where you could develop your mechanics alongside your game sense and therefore during the learning process you would have a greater deal of control over the outcome of the game.
|
On April 15 2013 04:30 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 03:41 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. I was a better player in Starcraft 2. I'm hardly awful, I did get to masters during the one time I really practiced and in the case of me playing versus my friend, I did eventually end up winning most games. The problem was that the learning process was frustrating. I mentioned initially losing to all-ins because to me they illustrate a weakness of the game: someone does a strategy you're unfamiliar with and then you die, no matter the level of execution. Developing as a player becomes largely an exercise in masochism and patience, because it's mostly about teaching yourself to recognize all the various timings and builds in the game. It's frustrating to have all your work go to waste simply because you failed to account for some timing. This is unlike Warcraft 3 and Brood War, where you could develop your mechanics alongside your game sense and therefore during the learning process you would have a greater deal of control over the outcome of the game.
Ah, so you're saying that you dislike the fact that SC2 is so timing based while WC3/BW is more of a mechanical game? I guess I can see where you're going, but I don't agree that it's a weakness in the game, but rather just a different design decision that SC2 made compared to BW/WC3. I was never a big WC3 player, but I did know that in BW, there are similar timings that could kill me if I wasn't ready, just I had more of a chance to come back if I was better mechanically than the other player.
|
On April 15 2013 05:01 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 04:30 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 03:41 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. I was a better player in Starcraft 2. I'm hardly awful, I did get to masters during the one time I really practiced and in the case of me playing versus my friend, I did eventually end up winning most games. The problem was that the learning process was frustrating. I mentioned initially losing to all-ins because to me they illustrate a weakness of the game: someone does a strategy you're unfamiliar with and then you die, no matter the level of execution. Developing as a player becomes largely an exercise in masochism and patience, because it's mostly about teaching yourself to recognize all the various timings and builds in the game. It's frustrating to have all your work go to waste simply because you failed to account for some timing. This is unlike Warcraft 3 and Brood War, where you could develop your mechanics alongside your game sense and therefore during the learning process you would have a greater deal of control over the outcome of the game. Ah, so you're saying that you dislike the fact that SC2 is so timing based while WC3/BW is more of a mechanical game? I guess I can see where you're going, but I don't agree that it's a weakness in the game, but rather just a different design decision that SC2 made compared to BW/WC3. I was never a big WC3 player, but I did know that in BW, there are similar timings that could kill me if I wasn't ready, just I had more of a chance to come back if I was better mechanically than the other player.
In WC3 you can win with 1 hero versus three heroes and 50 food armies just by being very skilled, in starcraft 2 if you do not see something and it attacks you can have a 0% chance to win.
|
On April 15 2013 05:13 Msr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 05:01 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 04:30 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 03:41 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. I was a better player in Starcraft 2. I'm hardly awful, I did get to masters during the one time I really practiced and in the case of me playing versus my friend, I did eventually end up winning most games. The problem was that the learning process was frustrating. I mentioned initially losing to all-ins because to me they illustrate a weakness of the game: someone does a strategy you're unfamiliar with and then you die, no matter the level of execution. Developing as a player becomes largely an exercise in masochism and patience, because it's mostly about teaching yourself to recognize all the various timings and builds in the game. It's frustrating to have all your work go to waste simply because you failed to account for some timing. This is unlike Warcraft 3 and Brood War, where you could develop your mechanics alongside your game sense and therefore during the learning process you would have a greater deal of control over the outcome of the game. Ah, so you're saying that you dislike the fact that SC2 is so timing based while WC3/BW is more of a mechanical game? I guess I can see where you're going, but I don't agree that it's a weakness in the game, but rather just a different design decision that SC2 made compared to BW/WC3. I was never a big WC3 player, but I did know that in BW, there are similar timings that could kill me if I wasn't ready, just I had more of a chance to come back if I was better mechanically than the other player. In WC3 you can win with 1 hero versus three heroes and 50 food armies just by being very skilled, in starcraft 2 if you do not see something and it attacks you can have a 0% chance to win.
That's not true, look, I don't play WC3 but if it's 1 hero vs 3 heroes, you're in a huge disadvantage position and the better player CAN win, but it depends on the execution of both players, am I right?
In SC2, it's the same thing. Just cause a Terran doesn't see a DT coming, doesn't mean it's an auto loss, it's just as important to see what their response is. When people talk about not seeing something coming, and thus not being able to defend it, that's kind of the point... the player thus needs to scout better and adapt quicker.
|
On April 15 2013 05:01 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 04:30 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 03:41 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. I was a better player in Starcraft 2. I'm hardly awful, I did get to masters during the one time I really practiced and in the case of me playing versus my friend, I did eventually end up winning most games. The problem was that the learning process was frustrating. I mentioned initially losing to all-ins because to me they illustrate a weakness of the game: someone does a strategy you're unfamiliar with and then you die, no matter the level of execution. Developing as a player becomes largely an exercise in masochism and patience, because it's mostly about teaching yourself to recognize all the various timings and builds in the game. It's frustrating to have all your work go to waste simply because you failed to account for some timing. This is unlike Warcraft 3 and Brood War, where you could develop your mechanics alongside your game sense and therefore during the learning process you would have a greater deal of control over the outcome of the game. Ah, so you're saying that you dislike the fact that SC2 is so timing based while WC3/BW is more of a mechanical game? I guess I can see where you're going, but I don't agree that it's a weakness in the game, but rather just a different design decision that SC2 made compared to BW/WC3. I was never a big WC3 player, but I did know that in BW, there are similar timings that could kill me if I wasn't ready, just I had more of a chance to come back if I was better mechanically than the other player.
Casting it as a dichotomy of strategy versus mechanics is oversimplifying it though. I highly doubt that Blizzard's original intention for Starcraft 2 involved any such thought, they probably only decided to update the interface to current industry standards in hopes of making their game accessible to a larger audience. They would never come up with the notion that the game needed to be more about strategy, since it's not something that sells. It's rather about building a lot of carriers and defeating your opponent or the zergling rush, - it's these scenarios that inform the design of Starcraft 2 and it does not have to do with strategy, but with making gameplay experiences strongly associated with the Starcraft brand accessible to the player base.
I think Brood War was more interesting as a strategy game for it had more positional play and that Warcraft 3 offered me more decisions to make such as unit movement and battle micro. Starcraft 2 somewhat trivializes mechanics, but it also probably requires less decisions to make per game. The result is a game dependent on very subtle differences in build orders to determine the outcome of the game, but this exists primarily because other aspects are lacking.
And I will say that when I watch Life or Innovation play the game seems very interesting. I haven't given HotS a real chance yet, who knows how it fairs.
|
On April 15 2013 03:59 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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.
The problem isn't that the game is random; it kinda used to be back in 2010, but really isn't anymore. The problem is that large parts of it are boring and not fun at all. You can go on about how every all-in is defensible if you keep scouting for all the subtle tells (which works assuming the opponent isn't just doing random shit), but for a lot of people, "Scout the all-in" isn't the game they signed up to play. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to not see the all-in coming till it's underway, but could defend anyway through good micro and crisis management?
This is what he's complaining about. If his friend executes a BO for Soul Train decently (which, let's not kid ourselves, a trained monkey could do given enough bananas for incentive), and he doesn't see it early enough, he just dies, no matter his unit control or decision making. And this is something that will happen, because you can't scout perfectly every single game - indeed, SC2 would be a lot worse if you could.
To be fair, this mostly has to do with the fact that the Protoss race is just an awful knot of unbalanced mechanics. TvZ seems quite good at the moment, mine/turbovac shenanigans notwithstanding.
|
On April 15 2013 07:11 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 03:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. The problem isn't that the game is random; it kinda used to be back in 2010, but really isn't anymore. The problem is that large parts of it are boring and not fun at all. You can go on about how every all-in is defensible if you keep scouting for all the subtle tells (which works assuming the opponent isn't just doing random shit), but for a lot of people, "Scout the all-in" isn't the game they signed up to play. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to not see the all-in coming till it's underway, but could defend anyway through good micro and crisis management? This is what he's complaining about. If his friend executes a BO for Soul Train decently (which, let's not kid ourselves, a trained monkey could do given enough bananas for incentive), and he doesn't see it early enough, he just dies, no matter his unit control or decision making. And this is something that will happen, because you can't scout perfectly every single game - indeed, SC2 would be a lot worse if you could. To be fair, this mostly has to do with the fact that the Protoss race is just an awful knot of unbalanced mechanics. TvZ seems quite good at the moment, mine/turbovac shenanigans notwithstanding.
Then what's the point of even trying an all-in if it requires some modest or extreme skill gaps to win with? And notice that these scenarios of "instant loss" are player-created by greed, and always have been.
|
On April 14 2013 13:03 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 11:25 iky43210 wrote:On April 14 2013 10:54 Merkmerk wrote:On April 14 2013 10:00 iky43210 wrote:On April 14 2013 09:48 Merkmerk wrote:
LOL - "these statistics are just cherry picked and being abused to show bias" - Terran players in this thread.
Come on guys. Stephano is complaining about TvZ. The winrates at masters and grandmasters TvZ is all their best matchup.
You're just going to have to accept that TvZ is imbalanced, and that widow mines are completely broken. I know that's difficult because you want to justify to yourself that all those wins were purely your skill, but that's how it is. Why should I care what Stephano says? I am willing to bet any zerg that made code A qualifier is just as good as stephano Korean seems to have no problem advancing in tourneys despite this "widow mine is broken lol". In fact, 12 zerg advanced compare to 7 terran. You're going to have to accept the fact that you're just bad and your attitude is whats holding you back. 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 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.
Dragon did not pass the code A qualifier, and he is rank 5 GM on NA.
Any winners from code A qualifier is probably just as good as most top foreigner "pro". So don't say they are crapshoot
And what "evidence"? if you give me stats about Korean terran beating foreigner zerg (which is basically what happens in foreign tourneys), I'll just laugh at you. Fact is TvZ is just about ~50% in GSL and GSL related games, and that is all really matters.
|
On April 15 2013 11:12 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 13:03 Emzeeshady wrote:On April 14 2013 11:25 iky43210 wrote:On April 14 2013 10:54 Merkmerk wrote:On April 14 2013 10:00 iky43210 wrote:On April 14 2013 09:48 Merkmerk wrote:
LOL - "these statistics are just cherry picked and being abused to show bias" - Terran players in this thread.
Come on guys. Stephano is complaining about TvZ. The winrates at masters and grandmasters TvZ is all their best matchup.
You're just going to have to accept that TvZ is imbalanced, and that widow mines are completely broken. I know that's difficult because you want to justify to yourself that all those wins were purely your skill, but that's how it is. Why should I care what Stephano says? I am willing to bet any zerg that made code A qualifier is just as good as stephano Korean seems to have no problem advancing in tourneys despite this "widow mine is broken lol". In fact, 12 zerg advanced compare to 7 terran. You're going to have to accept the fact that you're just bad and your attitude is whats holding you back. 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 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. Dragon did not pass the code A qualifier, and he is rank 5 GM on NA. Any winners from code A qualifier is probably just as good as most top foreigner "pro". So don't say they are crapshoot And what "evidence"? if you give me stats about Korean terran beating foreigner zerg (which is basically what happens in foreign tourneys), I'll just laugh at you. Fact is TvZ is just about ~50% in GSL and GSL related games, and that is all really matters.
Quote for epic truth. iky I think I love you lol
|
On April 15 2013 07:11 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 03:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to not see the all-in coming till it's underway, but could defend anyway through good micro and crisis management?
You can already do that. However then you shouldn't play too greedy. If you allow people to counter all-ins even better with ultra-greedy play and no scouting than is already possible (such as with the MsC), then SC2 turns again more into a game of NR15, since any attack before you have 4-bases established is classed as an all-in these days.
|
On April 15 2013 16:41 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 07:11 Toadvine wrote:On April 15 2013 03:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to not see the all-in coming till it's underway, but could defend anyway through good micro and crisis management? You can already do that. However then you shouldn't play too greedy. If you allow people to counter all-ins even better with ultra-greedy play and no scouting than is already possible (such as with the MsC), then SC2 turns again more into a game of NR15, since any attack before you have 4-bases established is classed as an all-in these days.
Well, that's not really true. Against certain allins you need certain techs. And sometimes you even need to be greedy to a certain extend.
E.g the best way to hold a Parting style Soul Train in WoL was to go hatch first and as greedy as possible like Life and Sniper did (because the Parting style Soul Train always goes Nexus first) and only produce at the last possible second. While any form of nongreedy play that leaves you with less economy was quite worse.
Or Protoss players that go for very safe defensive gateway play 4-8gates defensively into 3rd just get crushed by bio and hydra/infestor/roach/ling, while much more greedy plays (like 1gate+robo immortal into 3rd against zerg or 3gate+Colossus+double forge+twilight into third against Terran) are safer.
A lot of times in Starcraft you need to play very greedy early/midgame to be able to hold aggression in the midgame.
|
Voidray hardcounter corruptor hydra lmfao. FIx that
User was warned for this post
|
On April 15 2013 07:11 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 03:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. The problem isn't that the game is random; it kinda used to be back in 2010, but really isn't anymore. The problem is that large parts of it are boring and not fun at all. You can go on about how every all-in is defensible if you keep scouting for all the subtle tells (which works assuming the opponent isn't just doing random shit), but for a lot of people, "Scout the all-in" isn't the game they signed up to play. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to not see the all-in coming till it's underway, but could defend anyway through good micro and crisis management? This is what he's complaining about. If his friend executes a BO for Soul Train decently (which, let's not kid ourselves, a trained monkey could do given enough bananas for incentive), and he doesn't see it early enough, he just dies, no matter his unit control or decision making. And this is something that will happen, because you can't scout perfectly every single game - indeed, SC2 would be a lot worse if you could. To be fair, this mostly has to do with the fact that the Protoss race is just an awful knot of unbalanced mechanics. TvZ seems quite good at the moment, mine/turbovac shenanigans notwithstanding.
That honestly sounds awful. Like other people have said here, it'll degrade into a spiral of just let's see who's more greedy and how is that anymore fun to watch? And realistically, if you're talking about any build, the other person still has to execute the all-in properly, and the defending player still has to make decisions, micro and macro, to get through it. Having highly mechanical games is fun and all, but it's not a fundamental problem with the game, just a design decision.
On April 15 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 16:41 Sissors wrote:On April 15 2013 07:11 Toadvine wrote:On April 15 2013 03:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to not see the all-in coming till it's underway, but could defend anyway through good micro and crisis management? You can already do that. However then you shouldn't play too greedy. If you allow people to counter all-ins even better with ultra-greedy play and no scouting than is already possible (such as with the MsC), then SC2 turns again more into a game of NR15, since any attack before you have 4-bases established is classed as an all-in these days. Well, that's not really true. Against certain allins you need certain techs. And sometimes you even need to be greedy to a certain extend. E.g the best way to hold a Parting style Soul Train in WoL was to go hatch first and as greedy as possible like Life and Sniper did (because the Parting style Soul Train always goes Nexus first) and only produce at the last possible second. While any form of nongreedy play that leaves you with less economy was quite worse. Or Protoss players that go for very safe defensive gateway play 4-8gates defensively into 3rd just get crushed by bio and hydra/infestor/roach/ling, while much more greedy plays (like 1gate+robo immortal into 3rd against zerg or 3gate+Colossus+double forge+twilight into third against Terran) are safer. A lot of times in Starcraft you need to play very greedy early/midgame to be able to hold aggression in the midgame.
That doesn't really make sense. If Protoss player is going for a "very safe defense gateway play 4-8 gates defensively into 3rd...etc" it's not safe it's getting crushed. There's different definitions of safe for every race and having high tech units out w/ lots of sentries means safe for Protoss. If Protoss/any race is dying to something standard, it's not safe. Simple as that.
|
On April 15 2013 21:37 Chaggi wrote:That doesn't really make sense. If Protoss player is going for a "very safe defense gateway play 4-8 gates defensively into 3rd...etc" it's not safe it's getting crushed. There's different definitions of safe for every race and having high tech units out w/ lots of sentries means safe for Protoss. If Protoss/any race is dying to something standard, it's not safe. Simple as that. You doesn't seem to understand him at all. What he was saying is that you need to play "greedy" to be able to hold future aggresion. In this "greedy/standart play" you will die to some allins early, if you don't scout them. Basically playing safe now against everything means losing later.
|
On April 15 2013 21:37 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 07:11 Toadvine wrote:On April 15 2013 03:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. The problem isn't that the game is random; it kinda used to be back in 2010, but really isn't anymore. The problem is that large parts of it are boring and not fun at all. You can go on about how every all-in is defensible if you keep scouting for all the subtle tells (which works assuming the opponent isn't just doing random shit), but for a lot of people, "Scout the all-in" isn't the game they signed up to play. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to not see the all-in coming till it's underway, but could defend anyway through good micro and crisis management? This is what he's complaining about. If his friend executes a BO for Soul Train decently (which, let's not kid ourselves, a trained monkey could do given enough bananas for incentive), and he doesn't see it early enough, he just dies, no matter his unit control or decision making. And this is something that will happen, because you can't scout perfectly every single game - indeed, SC2 would be a lot worse if you could. To be fair, this mostly has to do with the fact that the Protoss race is just an awful knot of unbalanced mechanics. TvZ seems quite good at the moment, mine/turbovac shenanigans notwithstanding. That honestly sounds awful. Like other people have said here, it'll degrade into a spiral of just let's see who's more greedy and how is that anymore fun to watch? And realistically, if you're talking about any build, the other person still has to execute the all-in properly, and the defending player still has to make decisions, micro and macro, to get through it. Having highly mechanical games is fun and all, but it's not a fundamental problem with the game, just a design decision. Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:On April 15 2013 16:41 Sissors wrote:On April 15 2013 07:11 Toadvine wrote:On April 15 2013 03:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to not see the all-in coming till it's underway, but could defend anyway through good micro and crisis management? You can already do that. However then you shouldn't play too greedy. If you allow people to counter all-ins even better with ultra-greedy play and no scouting than is already possible (such as with the MsC), then SC2 turns again more into a game of NR15, since any attack before you have 4-bases established is classed as an all-in these days. Well, that's not really true. Against certain allins you need certain techs. And sometimes you even need to be greedy to a certain extend. E.g the best way to hold a Parting style Soul Train in WoL was to go hatch first and as greedy as possible like Life and Sniper did (because the Parting style Soul Train always goes Nexus first) and only produce at the last possible second. While any form of nongreedy play that leaves you with less economy was quite worse. Or Protoss players that go for very safe defensive gateway play 4-8gates defensively into 3rd just get crushed by bio and hydra/infestor/roach/ling, while much more greedy plays (like 1gate+robo immortal into 3rd against zerg or 3gate+Colossus+double forge+twilight into third against Terran) are safer. A lot of times in Starcraft you need to play very greedy early/midgame to be able to hold aggression in the midgame. That doesn't really make sense. If Protoss player is going for a "very safe defense gateway play 4-8 gates defensively into 3rd...etc" it's not safe it's getting crushed. There's different definitions of safe for every race and having high tech units out w/ lots of sentries means safe for Protoss. If Protoss/any race is dying to something standard, it's not safe. Simple as that.
That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that something that is safe against one thing may be completly bad against another* and in the end the only way to play the game is to play unsafe against certain things. You simply cannot "just play less greedy" and counter opponents allins as Sissors said. Because closing one timing window usually just means opening another one.
(that doesn't mean that I'm against that kind of gameplay, it's the essence of the strategyelement in RTS to take the right risks at the right time. I exclusively wanted to note that you cannot "just play less greedy" and you'll never have to fear an opponents coinflip again in Starcraft)
*like 4-8gateways into third is a very safe and absolutly nongreedy play against naked rax, early ling/bling or roach rushes, but dies to MMM or 3base roach/ling/hydra type of play
PL spoilers + Show Spoiler +or see JD vs State from PL today. 200supply of roach/hydra/Corruptor is very safe in the midgame, but it absolutly dies to a Protoss who reaches a critical mass of tech units in the lategame, so it's basically an allin in itself. It's not just "play less greedy and you won't die", because you still just die to something else.
|
On April 15 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 16:41 Sissors wrote:On April 15 2013 07:11 Toadvine wrote:On April 15 2013 03:59 SlixSC wrote:On April 15 2013 03:08 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 02:55 Chaggi wrote:On April 15 2013 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On April 15 2013 00:38 Chaggi wrote: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. 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. 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. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to not see the all-in coming till it's underway, but could defend anyway through good micro and crisis management? You can already do that. However then you shouldn't play too greedy. If you allow people to counter all-ins even better with ultra-greedy play and no scouting than is already possible (such as with the MsC), then SC2 turns again more into a game of NR15, since any attack before you have 4-bases established is classed as an all-in these days. Well, that's not really true. Against certain allins you need certain techs. And sometimes you even need to be greedy to a certain extend.
While I do agree with you that there need to be defensive strategies against every offensive one I think it is a good thing to look at the philosophical aspect of it; i.e. ask if a game is well designed if it allows for too many all-ins or makes them easy to pull off. Sure enough an all-in - just like a cheese play - is exciting to watch and carries certain risks, but are all-ins too effective and too easy to pull off in SC2?
1. All-ins need to be defendable, but not at the cost of your own strategic growth. This is kinda obvious because everyone would do it and the one who would do it first would win either outright or because the defender would be gimping himself too much.
2. Defending against all-ins should NOT be based upon one specific unit because you would auto-lose if you didnt build that specific unit in large enough numbers. The best example here is air units which threaten early ... if a Zerg didnt build enough Queens or doesnt get enough Spore Crawlers up quickly enough he will lose a big chunk of economy and thus be behind from that point.
3. Asking for a specific unit to deal with a certain all-in is kinda bad IMO, because you probably end up with a unit that is too efficient at killing stuff. If that same unit is then used for offense it becomes too good. A good example would be a buffed Siege Tank with damage enough to annihilate concentrated clumps of ground units. The only exception here are units which defend against air, because you need to kill buildings to win and they dont generally fly, but even then an "air superiority attack unit" is bad.
4. Personally I think that an all-in is too easy in SC2 due to the unlimited unit selection, the super tight and "perfect" movement which result in the ability to focus your power in one spot too much.
tl;dr
The gist of it is that in SC2 there really is no defenders advantage and that makes all-ins too powerful and risk-free, but specific defensive units is a risky way to "balance".
|
|
|
What i really dislike about Sc2 are all those "15-min-turtle-no-rush" games. They are freaking boring. I only watched a few BW games compared to he hundreds and hundreds that have been played, but i feel like they were more action packed, or am i wrong? I also played wc3 and i really liked all the action in it, the fact that a single well controlled hero can turn things arround for you. But now it all comes down to " well i have a shitton of units, he has an even bigger shitton of units so i loose". Of ciurse there are really brilliant micro moves like mkp splitting vs banes, zerg going for a 3 way flank attack ( people should really do that more often) or ff donuts + storm, but i feel that most of them are so rare that everytime it happens its in he next play of the week series.
The problem is that i honestly hav no idea how to fix this no-rush problem. My favourite sc2 games of all time are probably midgame tvz with marine/tank vs muta/ling/bane, where you have so much action and micro that even the observer cant keep up.
And then you have some pvt where the protoss camps till storm+colossus because he knows that MMM gonna walk over him if he moves out with 100 supply.
I feel like when blizzard gave medivacs afterburners ( yes, they are really strong i admit it) they tried speeding up the game and making it more action packed. But in return ppl shit on them and call stuff imba after code S lvl terrans stomp mid tier foreigners ( there was so much whine after IEM). I feel like they should have given other races this harrasment potential aswell, oracles just dont really work that well if you dont all in/proxy them, and after early games they are useless.
Just my 2 cents on what i think on the current state of sc2, i dont think the balance is that bad atm, but i dont like the games either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
