|
On October 29 2011 10:56 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 10:51 setzer wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. I guess the game could also be fucking Tic-Tac-Toe, if I am playing against a genius with 180IQ it is also going to be real rough, even though the entire came can be described in one sentence. You are looking at things way too narrowly. Awful example. The skill ceiling in Tic-Tac-Toe is so low a child can tie any master. That game is 100 percent ties.
The whole point of the "lower skill" argument is to say that a lesser skilled player can beat a higher skilled player on more occasions than they would be able to in BW.
At least right now SC2 just doesn't always allow the best player to win. The lowering of mechanics and dumbing down unit complexity (colossus for instance) result in a game that more often can end on the result of coin-flips (as can be seen by the number of all-ins SC2 allows).
We have two expansions to see if this continues to hold up but right now it isn't a false statement to say SC2 is an easier game when it was so far designed to be exactly that.
|
On October 29 2011 11:00 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 10:59 raviy wrote:On October 29 2011 10:56 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:51 setzer wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. I guess the game could also be fucking Tic-Tac-Toe, if I am playing against a genius with 180IQ it is also going to be real rough, even though the entire came can be described in one sentence. You are looking at things way too narrowly. Awful example. The skill ceiling in Tic-Tac-Toe is so low a child can tie any master. That game is 100 percent ties. Can we establish that every game has a different skill ceiling? Chess > Connect 4 > Tic Tac Toe? From that, it's clear that one of either SCBW or SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. Claims that the skill ceilings are identical are therefore incorrect. Which basically means that if you disagree that BW has a higher skill ceiling, you're asserting that SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. point being neither games have players that have reached that cap so the point is moot...
Nobody ever reaches the cap (except for something as simplistic as Tic Tac Toe). Nobody's hit the cap for chess or othello or checkers or connect 4 either. If anyone ever hit the "cap" the game would be pointless (like Tic Tac Toe). I fail to see how this makes the point moot, so to speak.
|
On October 29 2011 11:02 lFrost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 10:59 raviy wrote:On October 29 2011 10:56 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:51 setzer wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. I guess the game could also be fucking Tic-Tac-Toe, if I am playing against a genius with 180IQ it is also going to be real rough, even though the entire came can be described in one sentence. You are looking at things way too narrowly. Awful example. The skill ceiling in Tic-Tac-Toe is so low a child can tie any master. That game is 100 percent ties. Can we establish that every game has a different skill ceiling? Chess > Connect 4 > Tic Tac Toe? From that, it's clear that one of either SCBW or SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. Claims that the skill ceilings are identical are therefore incorrect. Which basically means that if you disagree that BW has a higher skill ceiling, you're asserting that SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. yes, and there is a reason ONLY inferior bw players have switched over to sc2, because they cannot compete any longer in bw. if sc2 has a higher ceiling than bw, why did they suck so bad in bw?
Because SC2 is new and experience counts for a lot. BW pro's have stated that if they switched immediately they would be stomped unceremoniously, and I see no reason to not believe them.
|
It's great for SC2 that top korean teams soon will make the switch. IDK what will happen with the current teams tho...
Why all treads about SC2 and BW must be turned into a "Which game is harder" contest ? It doesn't really matter.Ice hockey is harder than football(soccer), but that doesn't make Ice hockey more popular... Opposite is right too.
|
On October 29 2011 11:03 raviy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:00 sc14s wrote:On October 29 2011 10:59 raviy wrote:On October 29 2011 10:56 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:51 setzer wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. I guess the game could also be fucking Tic-Tac-Toe, if I am playing against a genius with 180IQ it is also going to be real rough, even though the entire came can be described in one sentence. You are looking at things way too narrowly. Awful example. The skill ceiling in Tic-Tac-Toe is so low a child can tie any master. That game is 100 percent ties. Can we establish that every game has a different skill ceiling? Chess > Connect 4 > Tic Tac Toe? From that, it's clear that one of either SCBW or SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. Claims that the skill ceilings are identical are therefore incorrect. Which basically means that if you disagree that BW has a higher skill ceiling, you're asserting that SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. point being neither games have players that have reached that cap so the point is moot... Nobody ever reaches the cap (except for something as simplistic as Tic Tac Toe). Nobody's hit the cap for chess or othello or checkers or connect 4 either. If anyone ever hit the "cap" the game would be pointless (like Tic Tac Toe). I fail to see how this makes the point moot, so to speak.
the point is that both games have a skill cap far exceding what the players can actually do so it doesnt matter if one game is harder than the other, the better player will win more often in the long run than the worse player.
|
Unsuprising that BW players who switch over basically start out in Masters league (high korean masters being easily as good/above GM in EU/NA/SEA). Mechanics can take you a long long way.
|
On October 29 2011 10:55 lFrost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 10:43 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:40 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. to quote someone here who has made this example before, if i played a game of basketball against kobe bryant and the hoop size was doubled to make the game easier, obviously the game would be easier for both me and kobe. however the lowered difference in difficulty would be much larger for me, because kobe would probably be able to make the same shots if the hoop size were normal sized anyway. thus, even though kobe is a much superior basketball player, he would have a harder time differentiating himself from inferior players if the game were easier because he would not be able to fully show and utilize his true skill. this is why many bw fans dislike sc2. if flash or jd switched over to sc2, it would be a massive waste of their talents Kobe Bryant would stuff your face full of basketball anytime you tried to shoot the ball so I think that analogy falls pretty flat. sounds like you missed the main point of the analogy
Sounds like you missed his point that, after Kobe dunks on you, he's gonna bend you over and violate you, and after he's finished, make you sign a waiver for legal action against him.All this for having the audacity to even talk about 1on1ing him.
|
On October 29 2011 10:55 lFrost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 10:43 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:40 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. to quote someone here who has made this example before, if i played a game of basketball against kobe bryant and the hoop size was doubled to make the game easier, obviously the game would be easier for both me and kobe. however the lowered difference in difficulty would be much larger for me, because kobe would probably be able to make the same shots if the hoop size were normal sized anyway. thus, even though kobe is a much superior basketball player, he would have a harder time differentiating himself from inferior players if the game were easier because he would not be able to fully show and utilize his true skill. this is why many bw fans dislike sc2. if flash or jd switched over to sc2, it would be a massive waste of their talents Kobe Bryant would stuff your face full of basketball anytime you tried to shoot the ball so I think that analogy falls pretty flat. sounds like you missed the main point of the analogy
Why won't Kobe just raise his percentage on even harder shots? Spin move, step back fade away from half court all day? Yes please
|
On October 29 2011 11:06 thepuppyassassin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 10:55 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:43 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:40 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. to quote someone here who has made this example before, if i played a game of basketball against kobe bryant and the hoop size was doubled to make the game easier, obviously the game would be easier for both me and kobe. however the lowered difference in difficulty would be much larger for me, because kobe would probably be able to make the same shots if the hoop size were normal sized anyway. thus, even though kobe is a much superior basketball player, he would have a harder time differentiating himself from inferior players if the game were easier because he would not be able to fully show and utilize his true skill. this is why many bw fans dislike sc2. if flash or jd switched over to sc2, it would be a massive waste of their talents Kobe Bryant would stuff your face full of basketball anytime you tried to shoot the ball so I think that analogy falls pretty flat. sounds like you missed the main point of the analogy Sounds like you missed his point that, after Kobe dunks on you, he's gonna bend you over and violate you, and after he's finished, make you sign a waiver for legal action against him.All this for having the audacity to even talk about 1on1ing him.
ok maybe i should have made the analogy clearer (since you cannot understand the main idea) to be a pro player (jj redick, fisher, etc - someone who would not be completely dominated against) vs kobe. and to the person arguing stepping back farther - okay make the basket 20 times larger so you can make it anywhere from the court. the main point is the if the game is easier, it does not necessarily benefit everyone the same, and would not allow truly better players to display their full skill
|
|
|
|
|
On October 29 2011 11:07 mishimaBeef wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 10:55 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:43 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:40 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. to quote someone here who has made this example before, if i played a game of basketball against kobe bryant and the hoop size was doubled to make the game easier, obviously the game would be easier for both me and kobe. however the lowered difference in difficulty would be much larger for me, because kobe would probably be able to make the same shots if the hoop size were normal sized anyway. thus, even though kobe is a much superior basketball player, he would have a harder time differentiating himself from inferior players if the game were easier because he would not be able to fully show and utilize his true skill. this is why many bw fans dislike sc2. if flash or jd switched over to sc2, it would be a massive waste of their talents Kobe Bryant would stuff your face full of basketball anytime you tried to shoot the ball so I think that analogy falls pretty flat. sounds like you missed the main point of the analogy Why won't Kobe just raise his percentage on even harder shots? Spin move, step back fade away from half court all day? Yes please
Well yes that too i suppose although half court shots dont award more points, your in the right place though. There are a lot of ways that analogy falls flat.
|
konadora
Singapore66366 Posts
On October 29 2011 03:34 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:01 chenchen wrote:On October 29 2011 02:55 Brainling wrote:On October 29 2011 02:45 Canucklehead wrote:On October 29 2011 02:19 Kira__ wrote:
I'm afraid that these superstars switching might be a dissapointment due to the limitations of sc2. The main reason they are untouchable in brood war is because of their godlike mechanics. People like IdrA who is looked upon as perhaps the player with the strongest mechanics in the foreign scene, doesnt even come close to them. But this doesnt play as big of a role in Sc2 as it did in brood war. Players with down right crap mechanics (Goody eliminating Nestea in TSL comes to mind) can bring down superior opponents because the game is quite frankly so easy.
Obviously these players will be in the absolute top, winning the tournaments, but won't be anywhere near as dominant as they could be in brood war. I like that aspect of sc2 because it rewards more game sense and knowledge, rather than just pure mechanics. I have this argument with my bw elitist friend all the time. I believe that a bulk of bw mechanical skill just comes from the fact that the bw UI is outdated and cumbersome. Therefore you need to become a practice robot to overcome the poor UI. I think that's the wrong way to judge skill. It's like if someone designed the most awful and unintuitive UI possible on purpose and then told people to practice like crazy to overcome these limitations. Sure some people will be able to overcome that handicap better than others, but that's just due to being a practice robot. I don't like judging skill like that. That's why I like sc2 more than bw because it rewards game sense and knowledge first and mechanics second. Sure people with great mechanics will still be rewarded in sc2, but since the UI is easier and more streamlined in sc2, that won't be the main factor of success because more people can attain that. I just don't like the idea of overcoming a crappy UI better than others as a good sign of skill. It just means you practiced more than others at overcoming that handicap. This is my exact though, and I was going to post it, but you already did. Measuring skill as your ability overcome a completely outdated UI and control scheme is stupid. Yes, BW is mechanically harder to play, but the idea that it's a good thing is completely foreign to me. Also, I think all the people predicting total collapse of the current SC2 scene are completely short sighted and don't understand the factors that went in to Korean dominance of BW. The foreign SC2 scene actually has the infrastructure and funding to compete now; it did not in BW. In fact, most of the money in SC2 is in the foreign scene, it's not in Korea. And lets face it, money is what really makes the best players. Money = best equipment, better salaries, more practice time, ability to pool the best talent in closer proximity. Money is also the reason you see the Pro League teams doing this. They see MLG, they see Blizzconn and the 13+K people that were watching GSL finals live. They see where the money is moving, and it's not in to BW. The real question is: How long can KeSPA keep up their demilitarized zone strategy to competition control? The real money in SC2 is found outside of Korea, which means the top players are going to need to be free to compete both in and outside of the country. KeSPA is gonna be late to the party and not just going to be able to throw their weight around to get what they want. The foreign BW scene was just as big and just as overhyped when it first developed in the late 90s and early 2000s. There were lots of tournaments and lots of fulltime pro players. However, by the mid 2000s, as expected, most foreigner BW players moved on to newer, shinier, games. The Koreans actually recognized it for the masterpiece that it is. Unfortunately for the foreigner scene, SC2 has already suffered from massive drops in player base since release as newer shinies are released. I think that not long after Legacy of the Void is released, most foreigners will have moved on to new shinies, thus destroying the foreign SC2 viewerbase which will lead to a collapse of the pro scene. However, when Koreans like a game, they stick to it. This is just a lie. Maybe the feeling is similar, but the prize money in SC2 is a full order of magnitude higher and the viewership two orders of magnitude larger.
you have to factor in that BW didn't have any fanbase to build upon and back that, the esports scene wasn't as big as currently.
|
The whole point of the "lower skill" argument is to say that a lesser skilled player can beat a higher skilled player on more occasions than they would be able to in BW.
2 guys have won 6 of the 9 last GSLs. In under a year MVP has won 3 GSLs, placed second in another, and won an MLG and Blizzcon. Basically the only people who've beaten him have been other absolutely elite players like Bomber, MMA and Nestea (all of whom who have GSL wins of their own).
If it were really that easy for players of lesser skill to beat great players, then how the fuck does MVP keep winning a single elimination tournament so much? If the game was really that random, it would be essentially statistically impossible for him to post that kind of consistent dominance.
The game is not random. better players win more. Not just a little bit more. They consistently beat lesser competition. The ONLY guy with a GSL win who doesn't have multiple major tournament victories is Fruitdealer, who played when the game was first starting. Every other winner either has multiple GSLs, or a GSL victory, high placement other MLGs, and at least one first place victory at a major foreign tournament like MLGs.
The best players win in SC2 a huge percentage of the time.
|
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
|
On October 29 2011 11:09 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:34 Chill wrote:On October 29 2011 03:01 chenchen wrote:On October 29 2011 02:55 Brainling wrote:On October 29 2011 02:45 Canucklehead wrote:On October 29 2011 02:19 Kira__ wrote:
I'm afraid that these superstars switching might be a dissapointment due to the limitations of sc2. The main reason they are untouchable in brood war is because of their godlike mechanics. People like IdrA who is looked upon as perhaps the player with the strongest mechanics in the foreign scene, doesnt even come close to them. But this doesnt play as big of a role in Sc2 as it did in brood war. Players with down right crap mechanics (Goody eliminating Nestea in TSL comes to mind) can bring down superior opponents because the game is quite frankly so easy.
Obviously these players will be in the absolute top, winning the tournaments, but won't be anywhere near as dominant as they could be in brood war. I like that aspect of sc2 because it rewards more game sense and knowledge, rather than just pure mechanics. I have this argument with my bw elitist friend all the time. I believe that a bulk of bw mechanical skill just comes from the fact that the bw UI is outdated and cumbersome. Therefore you need to become a practice robot to overcome the poor UI. I think that's the wrong way to judge skill. It's like if someone designed the most awful and unintuitive UI possible on purpose and then told people to practice like crazy to overcome these limitations. Sure some people will be able to overcome that handicap better than others, but that's just due to being a practice robot. I don't like judging skill like that. That's why I like sc2 more than bw because it rewards game sense and knowledge first and mechanics second. Sure people with great mechanics will still be rewarded in sc2, but since the UI is easier and more streamlined in sc2, that won't be the main factor of success because more people can attain that. I just don't like the idea of overcoming a crappy UI better than others as a good sign of skill. It just means you practiced more than others at overcoming that handicap. This is my exact though, and I was going to post it, but you already did. Measuring skill as your ability overcome a completely outdated UI and control scheme is stupid. Yes, BW is mechanically harder to play, but the idea that it's a good thing is completely foreign to me. Also, I think all the people predicting total collapse of the current SC2 scene are completely short sighted and don't understand the factors that went in to Korean dominance of BW. The foreign SC2 scene actually has the infrastructure and funding to compete now; it did not in BW. In fact, most of the money in SC2 is in the foreign scene, it's not in Korea. And lets face it, money is what really makes the best players. Money = best equipment, better salaries, more practice time, ability to pool the best talent in closer proximity. Money is also the reason you see the Pro League teams doing this. They see MLG, they see Blizzconn and the 13+K people that were watching GSL finals live. They see where the money is moving, and it's not in to BW. The real question is: How long can KeSPA keep up their demilitarized zone strategy to competition control? The real money in SC2 is found outside of Korea, which means the top players are going to need to be free to compete both in and outside of the country. KeSPA is gonna be late to the party and not just going to be able to throw their weight around to get what they want. The foreign BW scene was just as big and just as overhyped when it first developed in the late 90s and early 2000s. There were lots of tournaments and lots of fulltime pro players. However, by the mid 2000s, as expected, most foreigner BW players moved on to newer, shinier, games. The Koreans actually recognized it for the masterpiece that it is. Unfortunately for the foreigner scene, SC2 has already suffered from massive drops in player base since release as newer shinies are released. I think that not long after Legacy of the Void is released, most foreigners will have moved on to new shinies, thus destroying the foreign SC2 viewerbase which will lead to a collapse of the pro scene. However, when Koreans like a game, they stick to it. This is just a lie. Maybe the feeling is similar, but the prize money in SC2 is a full order of magnitude higher and the viewership two orders of magnitude larger. you have to factor in that BW didn't have any fanbase to build upon and back that, the esports scene wasn't as big as currently.
different times different enviroments. BW was just a little before its time, hell mayby sc2 is a little before the true time of e-sports ;P
|
On October 29 2011 11:10 ScoutingDrone wrote:
BW is the equivalent of wheelchair basketball, and SC2 is the equivalent of normal basketball.
BW mechanics that makes it "harder" are nothing but unnecessary handicaps placed on players to make it "harder".
A few examples are:
limited to 12 units per control group (unnecessary)
no rally point for workers to minerals (unnecessary)
cannot put multiple buildings in one control group (unnecessary)
As you can see, what makes BW "harder" are mostly caused by unnecessary handicaps, just like how wheelchair basketball is "harder" because you're handicapped and can't use your legs, but this doesn't make wheelchair basketball "better" than normal basketball.
If you think BW is "better" than SC2 because it has "harder mechanics", then I can make a better game than BW by tomorrow. I'll just copy everything about BW except make it so each control group is limited to only 3 units instead of 12. Does this make my game "harder" than BW?
Yes. Does this make my game "better" than BW? Hmmmmm.....
Precisely. You can also add that pro players must juggle knives while they play inside a moving vehicle they are steering. BAM harder game right?
|
to summary up:
SC2 skill cap: infinity
BW skill cap: inifinity+1
Ok yes, BW has higher skill cap than SC2 by 1, does it matter? Can anyone reach to that point in their 60 year of life? Does it matter if you richer than the other guy a penny if you both have 1 billion dollar?
SC2 hasn't been figuring out yet, and it will take a while. Just give it time.
|
On October 29 2011 11:14 canikizu wrote:
to summary up:
SC2 skill cap: infinity
BW skill cap: inifinity+1
Ok yes, BW has higher skill cap than SC2 by 1, does it matter? Can anyone reach to that point in their 60 year of life? Does it matter if you richer than the other guy a penny if you both have 1 billion dollar?
SC2 hasn't been figuring out yet, and it will take a while. Just give it time.
There we go, now my faith in humanity is restored. Sorry I got distracted by the note Chill wrote which is really just a conundrum. But it looks like sense has been restored.
I guess I am satisfied for now until this argument starts up again in a different spot.
|
On October 29 2011 11:04 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 11:02 lFrost wrote:On October 29 2011 10:59 raviy wrote:On October 29 2011 10:56 Medrea wrote:On October 29 2011 10:51 setzer wrote:On October 29 2011 10:31 Medrea wrote:
I disagree with the mod note that SC2 is a "less difficult game".
Its pretty obvious that anything that makes it easier for you is also easier for your opponent. Come on.
Game could be fucking 4-square (game of kings), if I am playing against a 7 foot tall pro 4-square player it is going to be real rough, even though the entire game can be described in two sentences. I guess the game could also be fucking Tic-Tac-Toe, if I am playing against a genius with 180IQ it is also going to be real rough, even though the entire came can be described in one sentence. You are looking at things way too narrowly. Awful example. The skill ceiling in Tic-Tac-Toe is so low a child can tie any master. That game is 100 percent ties. Can we establish that every game has a different skill ceiling? Chess > Connect 4 > Tic Tac Toe? From that, it's clear that one of either SCBW or SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. Claims that the skill ceilings are identical are therefore incorrect. Which basically means that if you disagree that BW has a higher skill ceiling, you're asserting that SC2 has a higher skill ceiling. yes, and there is a reason ONLY inferior bw players have switched over to sc2, because they cannot compete any longer in bw. if sc2 has a higher ceiling than bw, why did they suck so bad in bw? Because SC2 is new and experience counts for a lot. BW pro's have stated that if they switched immediately they would be stomped unceremoniously, and I see no reason to not believe them.
could you link me to where the bw pros have said that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
