|
On October 27 2011 10:12 drcatellino wrote:I suspect that when WoL was released you hated it because it was not enough similar to BW, and then with HotS you are pretending it will break the WoL dynamic, and then when LotV is released you will remember the good old days of HotS. Like you really hate every new thing that you can't understand immediatly. Sounds a little bit like my grandfather 
True. In fact, I already hate Legacy of the Void IN ADVANCE because even if I get into HoTS somehow and get used to it, they're going to fuck things up and reset the game AGAIN in a year. I'm already considering returning to SC2 in 2 years when Blizzard hopefully gets bored of it. What's the point in learning a game if one year later you have to learn everything all over again? It's pointless, you're only wasting time. If it's just for improving mechanics, might as well play BW then.
For a RTS game, anything that is new, untested, unknown, is actually bad and hurts the competitive side of the game. RTS games don't become good by good game design, the quality of gameplay is mostly emergent. Which means that RTS games become better over time, as people figure it out, come up with optimal strategies, and improve every segment of gameplay - and this is where we start seeing the good stuff happen.
Having a new expansion every year and messing things up with balance patches every 2 months prevents that from happening. So we're still seeing mediocre play in most of the games, and mediocre players doing well in tournaments because they're just lucky or found a new way to be abusive etc.
|
If you're into BW, go play BW. Starcraft 2 is a completely different game.
I actually liked a lot of the concepts that were unveiled for HOTS. I have complete faith that all the "craziness" of all abilities and units will be changed and/or toned down before or during Beta. Remember the Lurker among others was scrapped just before Beta for WoL hit.
|
On October 27 2011 10:10 wherebugsgo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 27 2011 09:51 Alzadar wrote:
People seem to have a very nostalgic view of Brood War. In terms of viable strategies and usable units, SC2 is miles ahead.
Brood War match-ups can be summarized thusly:
PvP: Dragoon Reaver, eventually Zealots, late-game add Archon Templar. No real deviation.
ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation.
TvT: Pure Factory units, except for that 1 in 100 game that ends with Battlecruisers. No real deviation.
PvT: Pure Factory units against Dragoon Zealot armies, with Templar later. Potential Carrier deviation.
PvZ: FFE into Corsairs ALWAYS from the Protoss. Zerg can go Mutalisk or Hydralisk, add zerglings and eventually Ultra/Defiler. Protoss will stick to Gateway units with occasional Reavers.
TvZ: The only match-up with actual potential for variety, coincidentally most people's favorite match-up.
Compared to that, SC2 has so many different options in every match-up. HotS looks to improve that even more. I don't think you've played very much BW if you think this lol. Not to mention, you're wrong in every instance except ZvZ, pretty much. Even ZvZ in SC2 is pretty much just one thing, roach wars. Occasionally you have a small baneling engagement but you can choose to never use them and be fine. Examples you missed: PvP: opening Templar archives for DT expand 4 gate (how is this different from PvP in SC2?) TvT: wraith builds (really popular lately) or dropship TvT. In SC2 you really only have two options as well; mech, or biomech. PvT: Terran has biomech all in options. Also various levels of vulture/tank compositions. Protoss can open reaver, Templar, 2 or 3 base carrier on certain maps, 3 base arbiter, etc. Lot of options here. Not that many in SC2, though. Terran has one or two options more but Protoss has fewer. PvZ: FFE/nexus first are standard in SC2 now as well, unless you want to do a one base all in or timing attack. Those exist in BW as well. In BW players can go Bisu build, corsair/reaver, or zealot/archon. On certain maps you can even go carrier. BW actually has more options on the P side than SC2. Zergs have a lot of options; pure hydra, hydra drops, muta/hydra, lurker/ling, lurker/hydra/ling, ling/muta etc etc. Usually into defiler ultra lategame, occasionally add guardians or something. TvZ being the only matchup with choices=lol. What was the point of this silly comparison anyway? To shit on BW? I think this is why people recently have been judging others based on join date.
Thank you <3
On October 27 2011 10:12 drcatellino wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 27 2011 09:53 Talin wrote:Finally a voice of reason and the correct criticism of HotS which isn't about balance but about how they're fucking up the game with completely inappropriate units and abilities. -_- Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 09:51 Alzadar wrote:
People seem to have a very nostalgic view of Brood War. In terms of viable strategies and usable units, SC2 is miles ahead.
Brood War match-ups can be summarized thusly:
PvP: Dragoon Reaver, eventually Zealots, late-game add Archon Templar. No real deviation.
ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation.
TvT: Pure Factory units, except for that 1 in 100 game that ends with Battlecruisers. No real deviation.
PvT: Pure Factory units against Dragoon Zealot armies, with Templar later. Potential Carrier deviation.
PvZ: FFE into Corsairs ALWAYS from the Protoss. Zerg can go Mutalisk or Hydralisk, add zerglings and eventually Ultra/Defiler. Protoss will stick to Gateway units with occasional Reavers.
TvZ: The only match-up with actual potential for variety, coincidentally most people's favorite match-up.
Compared to that, SC2 has so many different options in every match-up. HotS looks to improve that even more. But that's not actually a good thing. I want SC2 metagame to be stable. I want to be able to use the same openings and general strategies and compositions for 2-3 years or longer as a player, and I want to see it happen on professional levels as well as a spectator. Only when a game is stable like this can you see actual skill be the real separator between the players. Going into a SC2 game wondering what kind of new abusive build will pop up, or what weird new timing and composition will force a win with basically no skill required, or to worry whether the other player will scout it properly or figure out what he's scouting, or who's going to get lucky etc... it makes the game so underwhelming both to play and to watch. Sometimes less is more. That's actually an interesting question: Is a figured-out game more fun to watch than a new and unstable game ? On a personal level if the game is just going to be a hand speed contest with the strategic part of it mostly gone, I'll just stop watching. What got me into watching esports in the first place is all the wanky crazy stuff that came out of the beta (thanks TLO), which I tried to emulate as a player. Many TLer seems so conservative about what the game and esports should be. On October 27 2011 10:12 Talin wrote:
HotS may go through Beta but that almost certainly won't bring it up to the competitive level, and we'll be back in the stone age of WoL again and have to endure horrible strategies, horrible gameplay and very probably horrible balance for months before we get to the point we're at currently in WoL.
The only salvation for HotS is to cut almost every new unit and feature, especially the new exotic ones. One new unit per race is already pushing it tbh, no matter what that unit is like. I suspect that when WoL was released you hated it because it was not enough similar to BW, and then with HotS you are pretending it will break the WoL dynamic, and then when LotV is released you will remember the good old days of HotS. Like you really hate every new thing that you can't understand immediatly. Sounds a little bit like my grandfather
Yes, figured out game IS more fun. Figured out games naturally have less all-ins. Figured out games make all-ins, cheeses and other funny plays much more exciting not only because it's high risk and rarity, it has to be pulled out perfectly to succeed. Also players can focus more on analyzing each other. Player specific strategies are awesome because it will create weird relationship between players beyond "i'm just better than you" (ex. sk.iloveoov in his prime had the worst record against CJ.savior who also could not defeat sk.gorush). Also once the game is figured out, players start to express their personalities through the game. Thorzain is my favourite example. His TvZ on paper is no different from any other Ts. However how he manages with his army separates him a word apart from the crowd. It is something we need more from SC2 players because I'm getting pretty sick of news regarding what they say and how they look over how they play.
|
On October 27 2011 10:12 drcatellino wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 09:53 Talin wrote:Finally a voice of reason and the correct criticism of HotS which isn't about balance but about how they're fucking up the game with completely inappropriate units and abilities. -_- On October 27 2011 09:51 Alzadar wrote:
People seem to have a very nostalgic view of Brood War. In terms of viable strategies and usable units, SC2 is miles ahead.
Brood War match-ups can be summarized thusly:
PvP: Dragoon Reaver, eventually Zealots, late-game add Archon Templar. No real deviation.
ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation.
TvT: Pure Factory units, except for that 1 in 100 game that ends with Battlecruisers. No real deviation.
PvT: Pure Factory units against Dragoon Zealot armies, with Templar later. Potential Carrier deviation.
PvZ: FFE into Corsairs ALWAYS from the Protoss. Zerg can go Mutalisk or Hydralisk, add zerglings and eventually Ultra/Defiler. Protoss will stick to Gateway units with occasional Reavers.
TvZ: The only match-up with actual potential for variety, coincidentally most people's favorite match-up.
Compared to that, SC2 has so many different options in every match-up. HotS looks to improve that even more. But that's not actually a good thing. I want SC2 metagame to be stable. I want to be able to use the same openings and general strategies and compositions for 2-3 years or longer as a player, and I want to see it happen on professional levels as well as a spectator. Only when a game is stable like this can you see actual skill be the real separator between the players. Going into a SC2 game wondering what kind of new abusive build will pop up, or what weird new timing and composition will force a win with basically no skill required, or to worry whether the other player will scout it properly or figure out what he's scouting, or who's going to get lucky etc... it makes the game so underwhelming both to play and to watch. Sometimes less is more. That's actually an interesting question: Is a figured-out game more fun to watch than a new and unstable game ? On a personal level if the game is just going to be a hand speed contest with the strategic part of it mostly gone, I'll just stop watching. What got me into watching esports in the first place is all the wanky crazy stuff that came out of the beta (thanks TLO), which I tried to emulate as a player. Many TLer seems so conservative about what the game and esports should be.
I 'm not sure if conservative is the right word. I think in this community where most members are very much into esports if a fairly large portion of us is worried about where this game is going I think we are right to be worried.
Seeing esports kind of explode here in the west and being aware of what kinds of games and what elements in those games have been the most successful we should have pretty reasonable expectations as to what a proper esport should be.
They way I see it, and some may agree and some may disagree, HoTS is looking like its going to be some kind of bastard child of Command and Conquer and Supreme Commander. Those games never did anything substantial for western esports and I just don't see how taking sc2 in that direction is going to help at all either.
WoL in its current state feels like it has so much potential for a higher skill ceiling, deeper and entertaining gameplay, and growth as far as esports goes. Everything that has been announced for HoTS has shattered what I had hoped would be a move to reach that potential. I find it very depressing.
|
On October 27 2011 10:29 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 10:12 drcatellino wrote:I suspect that when WoL was released you hated it because it was not enough similar to BW, and then with HotS you are pretending it will break the WoL dynamic, and then when LotV is released you will remember the good old days of HotS. Like you really hate every new thing that you can't understand immediatly. Sounds a little bit like my grandfather True. In fact, I already hate Legacy of the Void IN ADVANCE because even if I get into HoTS somehow and get used to it, they're going to fuck things up and reset the game AGAIN in a year. I'm already considering returning to SC2 in 2 years when Blizzard hopefully gets bored of it. What's the point in learning a game if one year later you have to learn everything all over again? It's pointless, you're only wasting time. If it's just for improving mechanics, might as well play BW then. For a RTS game, anything that is new, untested, unknown, is actually bad and hurts the competitive side of the game. RTS games don't become good by good game design, the quality of gameplay is mostly emergent. Which means that RTS games become better over time, as people figure it out, come up with optimal strategies, and improve every segment of gameplay - and this is where we start seeing the good stuff happen. Having a new expansion every year and messing things up with balance patches every 2 months prevents that from happening. So we're still seeing mediocre play in most of the games, and mediocre players doing well in tournaments because they're just lucky or found a new way to be abusive etc.
Yeah well I respect the way you see gaming and esports, guess we just don't share the same vision. I think so far the most fun I had with Sc2 was during beta, when I was experimenting builds on the fly while playing, and making them work. What I appreciate the most about this game is creativity. Not just applied to builds, but the way units are controled and all.
|
On October 27 2011 10:26 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 10:19 wherebugsgo wrote:
Watch BW and you'll see really quickly that stability in builds DOES NOT mean lack of variety, strategy, or anything of the sort. It's not a "hand speed contest" either.
Watch games by Flash, Fantasy, Bisu, Stork, Jaedong, Jangbi, Zero, Stats, etc. and you'll see first hand how players make the game their own, with unique strategies and plays that come despite most of the best unit compositions already being known.
Choice of unit composition does not necessarily equal strategy, and years of BW has proved this. Yes, but don't you get excited when new strategies are revealed, like mass Queen ZvT or Wraith TvT?
The only reason people get excited about something like that is because in order for anything "different" to happen in a game and work, it would have to be incredibly smart and/or perfectly executed because of how optimal the standard way of playing is. The benchmark is extremely high - that is what causes most of the excitement, especially if the thing ends up working (and possibly becoming a future standard, as we've seen in the more distant past).
|
|
|
I think people are ignoring the versatility of the Replicant. Sure it's 4 supply, but it allows Protoss to make radical tech switches. 2 Robo Colossus can quickly become mass Void Ray with only one Starport. It might be an expensive way of doing it, but if Vipers are destroying your Colossus based army, it makes sense.
|
On October 27 2011 10:39 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 10:26 Alzadar wrote:On October 27 2011 10:19 wherebugsgo wrote:
Watch BW and you'll see really quickly that stability in builds DOES NOT mean lack of variety, strategy, or anything of the sort. It's not a "hand speed contest" either.
Watch games by Flash, Fantasy, Bisu, Stork, Jaedong, Jangbi, Zero, Stats, etc. and you'll see first hand how players make the game their own, with unique strategies and plays that come despite most of the best unit compositions already being known.
Choice of unit composition does not necessarily equal strategy, and years of BW has proved this. Yes, but don't you get excited when new strategies are revealed, like mass Queen ZvT or Wraith TvT? The only reason people get excited about something like that is because in order for anything "different" to happen in a game and work, it would have to be incredibly smart and/or perfectly executed because of how optimal the standard way of playing is. The benchmark is extremely high - that is what causes most of the excitement, especially if the thing ends up working (and possibly becoming a future standard, as we've seen in the more distant past).
Refer to the latter half of my post. I'm not really sure what either of us is trying to prove here: of course the BW metagame is more figured out and optimized. That doesn't mean that SC2 is "heading in the wrong direction", it just means it's a much younger game, and people are still innovating.
|
To say the Replicant was made purley to counter 1/1/1 is stupid.
Also, 90% win rate? Lets not pull stats out our asses here.
That being said, i really don't like the idea of a replicant and don't like the "copy a unit" strategy as a whole. I feel like it is almost a cop out to making a real unit for Protoss.
|
Quite honestly I'm a little surprised they released their ideas for the new units so early. It either means:
1 - They really value the input of the community and think we are smart enough to see where the game is going to go before it actually gets there. Or..
2 - They are really into marketing HoTS and want to make a huge demand behind the game well before it's released, and the unit additions/changes are mainly a side effect of their marketing goals.
Behind all of this, these units are so subject to change it's not even funny. The game hasn't even gone to alpha yet. In interviews with Blizzard guys, they've been quite open to saying stuff like "these are our ideas, but we acknowledge that they could wind up being terrible and never make it into the game".
At the very least, these units show that Blizzard is thinking of new ways to approach RTS, and that's wonderful. If the units stay how they are, though, they won't really solve the problems Protoss in particular has in the current metagame.
I really doubt we'll see the Oracle surface unless it is put on the gateway and does something more than just bug people. I don't think the replicator will get very far, and the Tempest frankly doesn't really solve Stargate problems anyway. If they don't realize this before alpha/beta testing, they will once the community gets a big dose of the units and tells them how ineffective they are at solving the problems Protoss has.
|
On October 27 2011 10:46 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 10:39 Talin wrote:On October 27 2011 10:26 Alzadar wrote:On October 27 2011 10:19 wherebugsgo wrote:
Watch BW and you'll see really quickly that stability in builds DOES NOT mean lack of variety, strategy, or anything of the sort. It's not a "hand speed contest" either.
Watch games by Flash, Fantasy, Bisu, Stork, Jaedong, Jangbi, Zero, Stats, etc. and you'll see first hand how players make the game their own, with unique strategies and plays that come despite most of the best unit compositions already being known.
Choice of unit composition does not necessarily equal strategy, and years of BW has proved this. Yes, but don't you get excited when new strategies are revealed, like mass Queen ZvT or Wraith TvT? The only reason people get excited about something like that is because in order for anything "different" to happen in a game and work, it would have to be incredibly smart and/or perfectly executed because of how optimal the standard way of playing is. The benchmark is extremely high - that is what causes most of the excitement, especially if the thing ends up working (and possibly becoming a future standard, as we've seen in the more distant past). Refer to the latter half of my post. I'm not really sure what either of us is trying to prove here: of course the BW metagame is more figured out and optimized. That doesn't mean that SC2 is "heading in the wrong direction", it just means it's a much younger game, and people are still innovating.
It is heading in the wrong direction merely by having so many drastic and exotic changes so often though. The right direction would be refining small details to improve the current game, and even that can be problematic if it isn't handled very carefully.
Right now, SC2 is a year old game. Next year, SC2 will also be a year old game. A year after LoTV it will still be a year old game. Players innovating is fine, but if Blizzard is constantly innovating parallel to the players then no real progress is being made towards reaching a true high level of play and mastery of the game.
Brood War took about a decade since the last patch to get to where it is, did we really need to waste 3 years for SC2? And let's be honest all of this is ONLY being done because Blizzard wants to sell 3 games instead of 1. Dustin Browder himself said if they look at SC2, they would change almost nothing at this point - but they're doing it because they want (to sell) "a cool expansion".
|
Well, in a couple of months after beta we will be able to come back to this thread and either call TT1 a prophet or an f'n idiot.
While I have no say on which one it will likely be, I would like to point out that nobody can say what is worthy of SC or what is a "sc-esque" unit/ability outside of blizzard themselves. I don't care if TT1 is the best player in the world, his opinion on what "ought" be in SC from a design point of view has as much value as my opinion (none). The only issue is balance and THAT is something we can't know yet.
That makes this entire thread pointless, albeit funny.
|
On October 27 2011 11:04 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 10:46 Alzadar wrote:On October 27 2011 10:39 Talin wrote:On October 27 2011 10:26 Alzadar wrote:On October 27 2011 10:19 wherebugsgo wrote:
Watch BW and you'll see really quickly that stability in builds DOES NOT mean lack of variety, strategy, or anything of the sort. It's not a "hand speed contest" either.
Watch games by Flash, Fantasy, Bisu, Stork, Jaedong, Jangbi, Zero, Stats, etc. and you'll see first hand how players make the game their own, with unique strategies and plays that come despite most of the best unit compositions already being known.
Choice of unit composition does not necessarily equal strategy, and years of BW has proved this. Yes, but don't you get excited when new strategies are revealed, like mass Queen ZvT or Wraith TvT? The only reason people get excited about something like that is because in order for anything "different" to happen in a game and work, it would have to be incredibly smart and/or perfectly executed because of how optimal the standard way of playing is. The benchmark is extremely high - that is what causes most of the excitement, especially if the thing ends up working (and possibly becoming a future standard, as we've seen in the more distant past). Refer to the latter half of my post. I'm not really sure what either of us is trying to prove here: of course the BW metagame is more figured out and optimized. That doesn't mean that SC2 is "heading in the wrong direction", it just means it's a much younger game, and people are still innovating. It is heading in the wrong direction merely by having so many drastic and exotic changes so often though. The right direction would be refining small details to improve the current game, and even that can be problematic if it isn't handled very carefully. Right now, SC2 is a year old game. Next year, SC2 will also be a year old game. A year after LoTV it will still be a year old game. Players innovating is fine, but if Blizzard is constantly innovating parallel to the players then no real progress is being made towards reaching a true high level of play and mastery of the game.
So your complaint isn't so much with the changes themselves or the actual direction the game is headed, but rather the rate of change and Blizzard's level of involvement with balance?
I don't think that's going to change, nor am I convinced that they're negative things. It will make for a somewhat more volatile game for awhile, but I think skilled players will still be skilled players and scrubs will still be scrubs.
|
All they did was add more micro diversity and viability(variability) to the game.
I don't see the key mechanics that you see are being removed. there are more options, there are different units.. wheres the comparison between how the new units will interact with new units.
First off, protoss have cloaked detectors at a low cost... burrowed banes are going to die very easily, and the damage from drops comes from protecting the banes with overlords, this will not change dramatically, only add options.
+ Show Spoiler +the beauty of sc1 was that the game revolved moslty around melee(or attacking units) while having a few spellcasters as the supporting unit, players would focus more on micro battles with their attacking units rather than with their spellcasters(it obviously still played a role but the emphasize was more on unit vs unit engagements), now i know thats its impossible to have the same type of unit on unit engagements as we did in sc1 just because the unit ai is so good but i feel like blizzard is trying to overcompensate for the lack of micro within the game by adding spellcasters but i feel like theyre going overboard with it.. sorry but Starcraftt is not WoW and our game should not revolve around a shitton of spellcasting units, Here I just want to point out the contradiction of this entire post which completely nullified it (for me). Could you maybe re-iterate cause I don't quite understand.
Anyway this isn't supposed to be a long post,
but if you don't choose to use the replicant, you best unit added in the expansion, you are completely throwing off you're whole view on the entire race, balance, and view on micro.
You're entitled to your opinion respectfully, but I completely disagree.
|
On October 26 2011 12:36 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:03 McPhiz wrote:On October 26 2011 11:52 Jayrod wrote:On October 26 2011 11:49 -orb- wrote:
My number one pet peeve with people responding to threads and arguments like this are people that say wait until the game is out to see.
Yes, it's hard to judge before we can play the game, but that's what everyone said about the biggest problems people had with stuff in WoL. Then all the things some people complained about (but others said wait until the game is out) were too ingrained in the balance and design of the game to be removed at that stage. We have to weed out this terrible bullshit before it gets to beta stage or it will usually be too late.
So please, those of you that snap-respond to every argument about the new units with "wait until you can actually play it to see," think about what you're saying. If no one considered the implications of new units and instead just sat around waiting for beta to come out, we'd end up with a terrible game (as we can see based on the decisions blizzard makes when not guided by the community) Bumping this because of the 5 idiots that posted his pet-peeve afterwards TT1 is the idiot if he thinks the replicator is only to beat one build. The sc2 community has to get their thinking caps on and try to understand the uses of the unit, it wouldn't even be that good against a 1-1-1 would it? I'm only posting what i did because it seems like people don't have the ability to understand what uses all of these units have. Try to understand and actually think about if before you talk about how bad any unit is. Yea this guy really called TT1 an idiot Show nested quote +On October 02 2011 16:52 McPhiz wrote:
well im still bronze and i've played all three races and i almost never lose with P or Z, T seems to be the hardest for me! Just for reference. Please don't call pros idiots.
Lol you are creepy man. I wasn't even talking about him being an idiot about the game, he is obviously way more knowledgable about that, I don't have time to play as much as him. I'm just saying he is being an idiot in general.
|
The new protoss units are bad. Tempest is a weird AA unit, fills a role I thought we already had covered, but maybe can be useful in the supreme late game vrs brood lord comps.
Oracle is fine. It can have cool applications. I would have preferred blizz let us actually kill workers but w/e.
Replicant is terrible. Blizzard literally looked at protoss and thought they'd fucked the race so hard that we need to be able to copy opponents units to deal with enemies. I picked protoss to play, not some weird hybrid race. Give me a unique cool protoss esque unit!
|
On October 27 2011 09:51 Alzadar wrote:
ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation.
You definitely have not watched bw if you think sc2's ZvZ is in anyway superior to bw
|
On October 27 2011 11:09 McPhiz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:36 Silidons wrote:On October 26 2011 12:03 McPhiz wrote:On October 26 2011 11:52 Jayrod wrote:On October 26 2011 11:49 -orb- wrote:
My number one pet peeve with people responding to threads and arguments like this are people that say wait until the game is out to see.
Yes, it's hard to judge before we can play the game, but that's what everyone said about the biggest problems people had with stuff in WoL. Then all the things some people complained about (but others said wait until the game is out) were too ingrained in the balance and design of the game to be removed at that stage. We have to weed out this terrible bullshit before it gets to beta stage or it will usually be too late.
So please, those of you that snap-respond to every argument about the new units with "wait until you can actually play it to see," think about what you're saying. If no one considered the implications of new units and instead just sat around waiting for beta to come out, we'd end up with a terrible game (as we can see based on the decisions blizzard makes when not guided by the community) Bumping this because of the 5 idiots that posted his pet-peeve afterwards TT1 is the idiot if he thinks the replicator is only to beat one build. The sc2 community has to get their thinking caps on and try to understand the uses of the unit, it wouldn't even be that good against a 1-1-1 would it? I'm only posting what i did because it seems like people don't have the ability to understand what uses all of these units have. Try to understand and actually think about if before you talk about how bad any unit is. Yea this guy really called TT1 an idiot On October 02 2011 16:52 McPhiz wrote:
well im still bronze and i've played all three races and i almost never lose with P or Z, T seems to be the hardest for me! Just for reference. Please don't call pros idiots. Lol you are creepy man. I wasn't even talking about him being an idiot about the game, he is obviously way more knowledgable about that, I don't have time to play as much as him. I'm just saying he is being an idiot in general.
But you were criticizing his abilities about the game?
|
On October 27 2011 11:14 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 09:51 Alzadar wrote:
ZvZ: Zergling Mutalisk. ZERO deviation. You definitely have not watched bw if you think sc2's ZvZ is in anyway superior to bw
I'm not sure what to say, you are wrong. I have watched tons of BW and I would much rather watch SC2 ZvZ than BW ZvZ. Pretty much everyone agrees that ZvZ in BW is boring, coin-flippy and predictable, except for the 1% of games that has hilarious proxy hatch cheese and the 0.01% of games that goes to Hive tech.
Totally irrelevant though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
