EPTDifferent games, different things to excel at. The way the game currently works no human will ever get anywhere close to a mechanical skill cap in sc2 so I wouldn't worry about that part.
BW Teams playing Starcraft 2 - Page 72
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Akta
447 Posts
Different games, different things to excel at. The way the game currently works no human will ever get anywhere close to a mechanical skill cap in sc2 so I wouldn't worry about that part. | ||
|
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
On October 29 2011 08:08 VPCursed wrote: all those 3 of those are incredibly extreme and once again show bias. no 1 is going to argue A teamers have a chance to do good in SC2. But its arrogant to say all of them will surpass people like nestea/MVP and revolutionize the game. Some might, some might fall off and accomplish nothing. And on a side note.. Go away Most of your posts end with "Go away" or something of the like.. It's the Internet, you don't have the power to command people to your will, so live with it. There is no doubt about the skill translation between BW and SC2, however since counters and all-ins are insanely strong in SC2, I don't think any player will dominate like Flash is in BW, I doubt anyone can maintain a high level of success in SC2 even if they "outclass" their opponents. I mean BRAT_OK beat NesTea with Ravens in a game, NaNiwa beat NesTea in a game, TooDMing beat MVP in a game, as well as SeleCT beating MVP in a game. SC2 is a heavily fluctuating game where your army can be deemed worthless to a blind counter, and you can straight out lose because of a BO. Overall, I do think BW players will have some success in SC2, but it's not going to be in dominating fashion. | ||
|
ClysmiC
United States2192 Posts
It would be a bit of a bittersweet moment. | ||
|
Carkis
Canada302 Posts
| ||
|
Kergy
Peru2011 Posts
This seems awfully similar to those years, a new class of players will take over the scene just by practicing more... the sole thought of Flash playing SC2 gives me chills  | ||
|
Fusilero
United Kingdom50293 Posts
On October 29 2011 08:29 Seirios wrote: If I'm not wrong, there used to be a foreign team in the early years of BW, right? I think one of those players even made it far in the OSL and Grr... won one. This seems awfully similar to those years, a new class of players will take over the scene just by practicing more... the sole thought of Flash playing SC2 gives me chills I think it was an AMD team, grrr.... won one and I think elky made semifinals of another one. | ||
|
Fiel
United States587 Posts
On October 29 2011 06:51 MetalLobster wrote: I'm all for e-sports growing, just understand that BW was around for years, so it has a lot of history behind it and for those who followed it along it's path will be angry that they will no longer enjoy it. I'm personally sad that BW is starting to go away because it's a balanced game with a higher skill-cap and I find battles in BW to be more epic than in SC2. I'm also angry about how many ignorant post are on this forum atm. Please stop posting out of your ass and fully read the OP before posting. I can drink to that. I'm filled with sadness and amazement right now. Sadness that BW keeps fading away, but also excited about the BW elite teams moving over. I just hope that JD will be included in this transition because he's currently teamless, and I'd love to have the whole TBLS play. If there's one thing I'm really missing right now, it's got to be BW TvP: - Cloning Zealots to drag mines on top of tanks - Vultures in front of the tanks - Arbiters stasis fielding everything - A huge f'ing wall of tanks - Goons killing as many tanks as they can Those battles are glorious.  | ||
wolfe
United States761 Posts
On October 28 2011 22:21 Za7oX wrote: A BW fan accepting what is going on without bashing SC2 :O *tips hat* double tips hat* | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On October 29 2011 07:41 Sandermatt wrote: Did the WC3 scene react to SC2 like SCBW reacts to SC2? (Warning: my personal experience only.) The War3 crowd, from my experience, kind of treated SC2 like BW. (At least where I hung out.) By this I mean that we saw it as a separate RTS game in a different series with a completely different focus compared to War3. Honestly, when SC2 was announced, my personal reaction was just, "Oh." And then I forgot about it for the next few months and didn't pay any attention to it at all out of lack of interest. Now, I think a lot of us are ... I don't even know how to describe it. Resigned? I think every fan of War3 right now will say that the game has gotten stale over the years; it's been figured out so well that even with creative people like Moon and TH000 in the scene, it's not enough. I mean, we'll be like "omfg don't vote for SC2 for the WCG next year," but it's less "I hate SC2" and more "it'd be nice if War3 were in the running next year again, because there aren't that many War3 tournaments anyways, and to better the chances of War3 WCG happening once more, we shouldn't vote for SC2, our biggest competitor." There's very little vitriol relative to what I see coming out of the BW community, and I feel there's less of the "my game is better" sentiment going around and more of the "I enjoy my game more for [insert reason here]." A lot of this, however, is probably due to the fact that our "hub" sites (lol, what hub sites?) generally have little to do with SC2, whereas TL always has BW and SC2 butting heads because it's a Starcraft site, not a SC2 site or a BW site. Also, it helps that War3 is completely unlike any RTS out there. If anything, it's a very weird mish-mash of RTS and RPG. Anyways, War4 will hopefully revolutionize the series just as much as War3 did for War2. War2 --> War3 was fucking incredible in terms of advancement, and it was a stroke of brilliance from Blizzard. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On October 29 2011 08:26 Akta wrote: If sc2 was the old game and sc1 the new, the sc2 fans would probably say the the "skill cap" is low in sc1 since they would have other things in mind like perhaps extremely fast micro of large amounts of units. Different games, different things to excel at. The way the game currently works no human will ever get anywhere close to a mechanical skill cap in sc2 so I wouldn't worry about that part. no they wouldn't, because side by side sc1 is actually the harder game, in each and every aspect you look at it. i don't understand how people don't realize this, i never even heard of starcraft before i played sc2 and i know that sc1 is 10x harder to play than sc2. | ||
|
OgsStump
128 Posts
| ||
|
BrosephBrostar
United States445 Posts
| ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On October 29 2011 08:03 Brainling wrote: The most annoying part of this entire thread isn't that BW people are proud of their games state, they damn well should be. It's that they make the continued claim that BW has always been this way, which is a complete farce. Again, I implore anyone who really cares to go look up some very very early BW strats, videos, etc. You'll see the same homogeneous play, stupid cheesey strats, lack of safe builds, bad scouting, bad micro and bad macro you're seeing out of top SC2 play now. Then go look at year two, and year three, etc. You should be able to clearly watch the progression of the game. To sit here and spout that SC2 will never have that intricacy of play, because BW has it now after ten years, and SC2 doesn't after one, is so disingenuous it's stupid. But similarly, to act as if game design has no influence on the competitive development of a game is just straight up stupid. Chess is more strategically intricate than checkers is, period. No amount of strategic development, no amount of high-profile tournaments, no amount of fans and sponsors, will make checkers a deep game. The rules of checkers simply do not allow for it. SC2 has a lot of stupid crap in it, that makes the game worse to spectate, and worse to play at a high level. These have been enumerated on these forums enough times - anti-micro abilities, blob vs blob battles, super-powerful cheese/allins, difficulty of scouting early, extreme counter-relationships between early units, super-powerful macro mechanics, lack of versatility for Z and P, and so forth. So yeah, maybe you'll see extremely intrictate SC2 play 4 years from now. Or maybe not, because Browder manages to completely destroy the game with his C&C units and balancing for diamond players. So it's kind of a pity to see the superior, and better developed game, die out in favor of a relatively untested mess with a lot of questionable aspects. If this was 3 years from now, and the SC2 metagame finally stabilized, and started producing true refinement instead of builds randomly clashing into each other, then I'd be less apprehensive of this. Now, however, SC2 may as well die out within the next 2 years, and we will be left with nothing at all. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On October 29 2011 08:35 Silidons wrote: no they wouldn't, because side by side sc1 is actually the harder game, in each and every aspect you look at it. i don't understand how people don't realize this, i never even heard of starcraft before i played sc2 and i know that sc1 is 10x harder to play than sc2. Nobody is anywhere close to approaching the skill cap in either game, so which is more difficult is entirely a moot point. I will be sad if professional BW ends, because it is something wonderful that I enjoy to watch. I don't really measure how sad I'll be for BW ending based around how I feel about SC2. Am I fascinated to see what BW A-teamers do in SC2? Sure, they could bring about a revolution in the metagame and the skillset of SC2 players. But regardless of which game I "like more," I still am sad to lose a unique form of entertainment that I loved. Complicated emotions, certainly, and I hope BW hangs on for a bit longer, but I am excited for the future. | ||
|
testthewest
Germany274 Posts
On October 29 2011 08:25 Gann1 wrote: I'm just curious. Did you ever really follow BW, or are you just stating an uninformed opinion as fact? Guess you missunderstand the man. The sentence "Starcraft 2 requires more tactical skill." refers not to "...more tactical skill than BW", but "...more tactical skill than mechanical skill". To be honest: It's all aweinspiring to see humans control armys and economy in BW, but basicly a good part of the difficulty comes from difficult control of the game, not of the real game. It's just like paralympics. Aweinspiring how blind people play basketball....then again: I rather watch non-disabled pro play the game. Stuff like small controlgroups, arkward hotkeys etc doesn't make the game more interesting for me. BW of course also has the tactical side. And that's the interesting part. SC2 cuts out the slack. That doesn't mean it's the better tactical game, but at least it has the potential to get to new heights, because it doesn't bind so much APM on control, but rather on the actual game. | ||
|
fant0m
964 Posts
On October 29 2011 06:37 aTnClouD wrote: i wonder if they can handle the frustration of losing to bad players time after time since sc2 is designed so people are able to win against much better player with very little effort and some luck. Honestly this is wrong, and I think all the "BW scene" people are putting up this same straw man, it's really their only argument against SC2. A better player never loses due to "luck." If you lose due to "luck" in SC2, you aren't the better player, period. The problem with this position is that you are assuming that we have "good" pro players already playing SC2. A truly "good" pro player is consistent. No one except MVP and Nestea is consistent in SC2 so far, literally no one else. And Nestea doesn't have the extreme APM to match MVP's consistency. MVP obviously doesn't have 100% win rate, but the only people he loses to are the ones right behind him, like MMA and Bomber (and Nestea once). Even in his foreign tournaments, he went through MLG Anaheim without losing (winner's bracket -> won grand final), went through Blizzcon dropping only 1 set (to Nestea, and one of the games was close spawn Shattered Temple). Seriously, go take a look at MVP's record on gomtv.net. Take out the BO1's in group stages and team leagues. Look at his record in BO3+ and his individual league record. Ever since January, when he first established himself, he has lost to Ganzi (Super Tournament - June 1st), 2 Protoss (in March- when Protoss was unbeatable/had amulet), Bomber, and MMA in BO3+ series. That is IT. The Ganzi loss is honestly his only blemish in the last 10 MONTHS. Beyond that, he lost to Bomber and MMA, the only people close to him. That is not the sign of a "luck-based" game. | ||
|
Bobster
Germany3075 Posts
On October 29 2011 08:42 fant0m wrote: Honestly this is wrong, and I think all the "BW scene" people are putting up this same straw man, it's really their only argument against SC2. A better player never loses due to "luck." If you lose due to "luck" in SC2, you aren't the better player, period. The problem with this position is that you are assuming that we have "good" pro players already playing SC2. A truly "good" pro player is consistent. No one except MVP and Nestea is consistent in SC2 so far, literally no one else. And Nestea doesn't have the extreme APM to match MVP's consistency. MVP obviously doesn't have 100% win rate, but the only people he loses to are the ones right behind him, like MMA and Bomber (and Nestea once). Even in his foreign tournaments, he went through MLG Anaheim without losing (winner's bracket -> won grand final), went through Blizzcon dropping only 1 set (to Nestea, and one of the games was close spawn Shattered Temple). Seriously, go take a look at MVP's record on gomtv.net. Take out the BO1's in group stages and team leagues. Look at his record in BO3+ and his individual league record. Ever since January, when he first established himself, he has lost to Ganzi (Super Tournament - June 1st), 2 Protoss (in March- when Protoss was unbeatable/had amulet), Bomber, and MMA in BO3+ series. That is IT. The Ganzi loss is honestly his only blemish in the last 10 MONTHS. Beyond that, he lost to Bomber and MMA, the only people close to him. That is not the sign of a "luck-based" game. Maybe he just got lucky. On October 29 2011 08:42 testthewest wrote: Guess you missunderstand the man. The sentence "Starcraft 2 requires more tactical skill." refers not to "...more tactical skill than BW", but "...more tactical skill than mechanical skill". To be honest: It's all aweinspiring to see humans control armys and economy in BW, but basicly a good part of the difficulty comes from difficult control of the game, not of the real game. It's just like paralympics. Aweinspiring how blind people play basketball....then again: I rather watch non-disabled pro play the game. Stuff like small controlgroups, arkward hotkeys etc doesn't make the game more interesting for me. BW of course also has the tactical side. And that's the interesting part. SC2 cuts out the slack. That doesn't mean it's the better tactical game, but at least it has the potential to get to new heights, because it doesn't bind so much APM on control, but rather on the actual game. I always use the three-legged race comparison. That's why a lot of people are excited for the BW players changing over. Imagine what those guys can do when their legs are untied. :D | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
| ||
|
setzer
United States3284 Posts
On October 29 2011 08:51 Bobster wrote: Maybe he just got lucky. I always use the three-legged race comparison. That's why a lot of people are excited for the BW players changing over. Imagine what those guys can do when their legs are untied. :D I'm super excited to see Bisu micro some colossus around instead of reavers. | ||
|
Bobster
Germany3075 Posts
On October 29 2011 08:55 setzer wrote: I'm super excited to see Bisu micro some colossus around instead of reavers. Maybe he'll switch to Terran! edit: that's actually a statistic I'm curious about. How many of the ex-BW players who switched over have also switched races along with that? I know most of the high profile players stuck to their races (Boxer, Yellow, July, Nada etc). But would be an interesting statistic for sure. | ||
| ||
