On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Haha, SIGH!
Ok, first off I didn't say anything about my understanding of 'the intricacies'. That's irrelevant, I'm just pointing out the fact that the top players do well consistently (MLGs are proof of this).
I don't think I'm being condescending, either. I just don't appreciate when people reach for excuses that aren't necessarily fact. Regardless what of they say, statistics will prove otherwise. SC2 has come quite a long way. Blizzard said it themselves, they wouldn't change Wings of Liberty at all. I don't see "so many bad players getting decent results". Wins these days are earned or lost fairly, at least according to results.
If you fail at seeing players getting tournament placements they don't deserve according to their skill level and understanding of the game it doesn't mean people who actually have a clue can't do it. Just look at MLG Orlando and Dreamhack there's plenty of randomness in the final standings and plenty of well deserving top players losing in the groupstage or way too early. Also I don't need to make excuses to justify the fact I didn't win any major tournament (like anybody needs to excuse the fact they didn't win a major tournaments, cool story bro) because I know it's about how well and how much you practice and I never ever denied I could have practiced much more in the past. In the end the best players will get their championships if they play enough tournaments, but if you take a single event it barely represents who were the best players in that moment and who played better beause of the random aspects of SC2 I've described in this thread already. It really seems like SC2 conceptually resembles poker or magic way more than it does with SCBW.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
There are also a lot of other factors involved in player performance, take for example all the traveling and exhaustion. Some people also perform better than others with less sleep etc. It's way to easy to just say the game is volatile but not factor in any of these circumstances which could very well be the biggest reason of them losing to lesser players.
edit: also it's just stupid to compare sc2 and bw. Bw has a lot more closed tournament system than sc2 does, you need a progamer license which is very hard to get and then there are only a few player you will ever meet. It's way easier to prepare for these players since you know everyone and like I already said they have nearly no traveling. Also there were only 2 tournaments ( now just OSL ) and proleague to prepare for while most tournaments in sc2 are ones that go over the weekend and give you no time to prepare for your opponent. The only place that slightly resembles this is the GSL which does see quite some volatility but in the end mvp and nestea ( although slumping a bit ) and a few months ago MC would always come on top.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
The only times I have seen a top pro lose to a no-name is in a PvP or ZvZ, which are by their nature more coin-flippy matchups than any of the others. Even that's pretty rare though, unless you can point some examples out for me.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
In response to your comment about upsets
Jjakji deserved his wins
I think a lot of upsets happen because of the metagames at higher levels verses those of the mid-higher levels
something that works at mid-high will not work at high level because of that, a pro player may discount certain strategies and underprepare for them because of this, if someone executes one of those strategies perfectly, they can beat the better player
it is just a case of getting too greedy
You realize how contradicting that is. If something doesn't work at high level, then that's that. If something works at high level unless your opponent is effectively countering it, then that means it's a viable strategy, tactic or w/e.
Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
The only times I have seen a top pro lose to a no-name is in a PvP or ZvZ, which are by their nature more coin-flippy matchups than any of the others. Even that's pretty rare though, unless you can point some examples out for me.
You just gave me the examples. Even you admitting "which are by their nature more coin-flippy matchups than any of the others" is more than enough for me.
No matchup in this game should have to feel "coin-flippy".
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote: Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
I've never played bw. I'm master sc2 player, and recently played sc2 bw maps and watched some pro league. Sc bw is so freaking superior to sc2, it's not even funny. I repeat: i'm not a bw fanboy, in fact i'm more a sc2 fanboy, but even the "sc2 bw" maps have so much better micro mechanics than sc2.
I agree with cloud. After watching in bw maps, how better sc2 could have been. Sc2 is an amazing game, but the mechanics and balance design is totally flawed.
On December 03 2011 10:10 MadJack wrote: tbh cloud is right, blizzard has released so many patch for this game already, youve got to realise how badly design the game is.
'Course, a year and a half after release, the expansion was already out for the original. Still, this argument is pretty nonsensical, Brood War was still releasing major balance patches three years after release.
Getting tired of hearing this bullshit, StarCraft 1 had four balance patches.
I think Bischu makes a great point. In BW, protoss' main econ harass options were storm drops, reaver drops and dark templars. None of those were dedicated "econ harass units" but they could still be incredibly effective at it used in the right hands. At the same time, they had many others roles in the game. In order to compensate for the lack of interesting and dynamic units, Blizzard is just adding a whole bunch of units and spells with the hopes that there will be a unit and spell out there to fill every role in the game. Protoss doesn't have good econ harass options? Let's add a specific spell for econ harass. Protoss has trouble dealing with mass mutas, let's add a unit that hard counters mass mutas. These problems were already present in SC2 to an extent, and now they're only compounding it further with HOTS. I really feel like Blizzard is showing no effort whatsoever to try and understand why BW was such a great game (I think it's obvious by now that they have no clue).
On December 04 2011 02:13 StarStruck wrote: Excuse for losing? I beg your pardon?
If you ask any pro who plays protoss they will tell how volatile the PvP match-up is (in BW, you'd hear similar arguments for ZvZ).
With that said, you lose sight of a guy's army for one second and you could be dead in SC2. That's just how it is. Scouting has never been more important.
ZvZ is arguably better in SC2. That was my impression after MLG Providence, especially the Idra/Nestea games. Let's not waste any time talking about what might be better about SC2 though.
Every time I see someone say "no, we don't want SC:BW 3D," they just end up saying they want SC2 to be more like BW, in any number of ways you can say it. Then the "remove MBS smart casting" request comes up. You know it's not going to happen. You know what makes you good, at least in your estimation, but you're a tiny minority.
Keep complaining if it makes you all feel better, but for all the pros that look down their noses, keep in mind you're the 1%, and in this case, you're not rich and powerful. Even then, pros still have more influence in balance, but 10,000 pros or wannabes buying HotS isn't going to fund the next game, and Blizzard will have totally failed to do their job, which is to make a game that sells. So again, MBS and smartcasting aren't going away.
One day people will find other ways to evaluate "good," and stop requiring old definitions to feel better about themselves. Hopefully, that doesn't actually come down to who executes the best 4 gate or 2 base roach/ling, or 2 port banshee. I'm not that enthused about the HotS units myself, but being completely negative and making remarks like Cloud only serve to stir up this lovely old debate. In the future, hopefully I"ll stick to places like SotG where they at least attempt to discuss it in a somewhat professional manner. Sometimes in life, you have to leave your feelings at the door and act grown up in public. I'm sure it's tough for so many young pro gamers to realize this, but if you want to be taken seriously, act like an adult.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists for use in a competitive video game scene.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to design a game and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists for use in a competitive video game scene.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to design a game and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to game design and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure has hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Sorry to wake you into reality but Day9 and most casters/players are making money out of mainstream thinking people who everytime they see a negative opinion think negative about whoever said it. Since their income is strictly related to what the random american-european think of them and the game they try as hard as they can to give merit to things that barely deserve any. If anything you could say Day9 has a really special talent for making everything he says interesting to hear, but what you see from casters shows and sotg is just the result of people trying to make money out of SC2. The only guy I respect for being honest in this case is Idra, and trust me many progamers tell me I'm dumb cause I say what I think without caring of the consequences on my image when they all try as hard as they can to build up a positive reputation upon their own public images.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
There are also a lot of other factors involved in player performance, take for example all the traveling and exhaustion. Some people also perform better than others with less sleep etc. It's way to easy to just say the game is volatile but not factor in any of these circumstances which could very well be the biggest reason of them losing to lesser players.
edit: also it's just stupid to compare sc2 and bw. Bw has a lot more closed tournament system than sc2 does, you need a progamer license which is very hard to get and then there are only a few player you will ever meet. It's way easier to prepare for these players since you know everyone and like I already said they have nearly no traveling. Also there were only 2 tournaments ( now just OSL ) and proleague to prepare for while most tournaments in sc2 are ones that go over the weekend and give you no time to prepare for your opponent. The only place that slightly resembles this is the GSL which does see quite some volatility but in the end mvp and nestea ( although slumping a bit ) and a few months ago MC would always come on top.
In response to the "closed system" comment: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233991 The most recent OSL had Pro-Am qualifiers (i.e: "no-names" were trying to qualify along with those with their licenses). Every single no-name got thrashed 2-0 in the first round by (for the most part) relatively unspectacular pros. And it's not like they prepared to face these particular players, they just simply outplayed them overall. You have cases where the better player overcomes tremendous disadvantages or build order losses through smart play and squeezing every inch out of every unit. Also, in Winner's League, you can't prepare for any particular player, yet the "All-Kill" phenomenon happens a lot every season of it.
In general, I'd be inclined to agree that spellcasting is way too powerful in SC2 - everything just melts because of the natural clumping. It also means that it is that much harder to scrape together a miraculous comeback (though, they still do happen) against an opponent, even the weaker ones. I'm going to wait for HotS beta to comment more on the new units - they're still untested and subject to huge changes - which will happen if the new abilities are as gamebreaking as people are assuming.
When watching the TL interview with Dustin Browder and he said "This is SC2 not Broodwar", and that people should go play Broodwar if that's what they want, because it's still a great game; I realised he would just never get it. Trying to make a competitive RTS like SC2 while ignoring BW, is like trying to develop a scientific theory while ignoring the works of Newton and Einstein.. you're discarding years of solid fundamentals by deciding to go it alone instead, for no reason except perhaps pride. We don't want logical science, we want fun science!
Check out the disaster which is the PvP match up, a result of discarding the tenet of "defenders advantage" in thename of gimmicks, to see where this philosophy ends up.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists for use in a competitive video game scene.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to design a game and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Do you really believe in what you say? Did you ever hear Day9 say ANYTHING negatively about a player or the game? No, because he makes his living out of it. He wants Sc2 to be as much appreciated as possible, to get as much exposure, and to shine in the best light. That's understandable from his point, or from pretty much every caster out there. But that doesn't mean because he says "X is fine, we don't know about Y" etc. means it's actually fine. The only thing it does is shoving problems aside without actually discussing / solving them. So he has as much reason to be as biased as the players, but it doesn't effect him the same as the players. It doesn't matter to him if ZvZ is coin-flippy, because he isn't affected. He still flys to tournaments to cast ZvZ, regardless if the better player advances or not. He couldn't care less (i don't say he does), he just wants as many people to tune in and as many sponsors to jump aboard as possible, and to increase his market value.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
The ability to manipulate the variables at a video game at a more successful level than your peers is not a skill that is directly proportional to how well one can observe, understand, and articulate the issues with one or multiple game mechanics within a game system. Yes, being able to play the game at a high level is inherently valuable in understanding how a game system works because you don't have to project on how that game plays at its highest levels. The further you are from being the king of StarCraft, the more projection one has to do in order to understand how the game is played at an optimal level. However, all that rote memorization is typically only useful for making suggestions in what should be done in order to fix the current state of game balance and usually disregards whether it makes the game more fun to play. They're thinking of it from the perspective of "What makes the game more balanced?" or "What makes the game more balanced in my favor?" rather than "What makes the game more interesting to play?" In-fact, in the case of somebody like Cloud, it is harmful for him to speculate on the future of game balance because it is not his job to play a hypothetical game but the one that currently exists for use in a competitive video game scene.
Out of all of the top-notch StarCraft players that I have ever listened to on this forum, the only one of which I would overwhelmingly trust and approve the oversight of a video game to would be Day9, and that's not because he plays StarCraft at a high level. (That's not to say he's the only person whose opinion on game theory is worth a damn, but he's the only one to demonstrate it so far.) It's because he has not only played numerous games in numerous genres at a competent level, but understands theory and articulates that theory exceptionally well in his Dailies. Anyone remember that State of the Game where everyone thought IdrA beat the stuffing out of Day9 because IdrA was listing off all the builds he could not get to work against Protoss and Day9 kept stressing "We don't know if X will eventually be the counter to Y?" IdrA's brain thinks in absolutes. He cannot discuss the game in a manner that does not directly correlate to the way it plays. Day9 thinks of the game in the manner which players can and will manipulate the game variables in the future. Consequently, Day9's understanding of the game is a thousand time more valuable than IdrA's. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy like IdrA to design a game and judging from what Cloud has said in this thread, I sure as hell wouldn't trust him either. "He's good at StarCraft so his opinion means more!" only carries weight if they actually know what they're talking about.
Day9 did not comment on the issue because he did not want to alienate a portion of his fanbase. That is why he has always taken a very very neutral stance on issues, because he knows all sides of the spectrum look up to him. Not because he is some super genius or something. (Although he is very smart in keeping bias down and appealing to everyone.)
looking at how the game is still changing, i think cloud and merz have a valid argument. you can't just look at the game fresh after a balance patch and say everything is dandy. several builds and mechanics have been getting tuned since release. for example, blizzard will continue to adjust warpins into hots and has been making changes to warpins (research, cd, pylon radius) since sc2's release. these changes seem to come about because of the abusiveness of warpins in the early game. even with 4gate as a PvP build, they seek to change warpin, which says to me they aren't looking at the mechanic only from a balance pov but also from a design pov (maybe they see the mirror matchup as too fragile in the presence of allin BOs atm).
Firstly, thank you for compiling these interviews. This is the kind of freelance journalism that makes the StarCraft community so good.
Now on to the interviews. I think iNcontroL is incredibly intelligent. I love what he's doing for eSports, and I love how passionate he is. I don't understand Cloud. Is he saying that HotS won't be balanced, or that StarCraft II in general can't be balanced. He just seems super cynical about the whole eSports community. I think WhiteRa has a point-- Protoss, traditionally, is the the gas-gobbling race. I think there needs to be another mineral heavy unit for them.
On December 04 2011 02:02 Gentso wrote: It's funny how 'pros' are still using that excuse for losing. The best players consistently do well, it's just about getting to that level. This game was so build and that 'one deciding battle' focused for so long people (pros. mainly foreigners) don't play it well enough. SC2 has evolved beyond coin flip, it's 100% whoever plays better wins. First TT1's thread and now this statement.. I find it kind of sad. I believe they think they're better than they actually are.
So, you think your insight gives you better judgment over the intricacies at the top level than people who invested over a year worth of dedicated practice into the game? I don't think you should speak so condescending to these people.
Point is Gentso, even the best players (HuK for example) still lacks consistency. No one can deny their skill, and how good they are at this game, yet they go from winning huge events to failing in Group stages day 1 vs complete "no names".
Things like these tells me a thing or two about how volatile the game still is. I'm certain ClouD for example, isn't complaining about this due to his own losses. Whenever I go to events and I see a favorite losing to a complete unknown (which pretty much happends every event now) it just saddens me. Upsets are upsets for a reason, they are called upsets because they rarely happen and no one expected that guy to win. But at this time, they are not even upsets, when a really good player loses to someone unknown we're hardly even surprised anymore, because that's just how this game is at the moment, and it sucks.
There are also a lot of other factors involved in player performance, take for example all the traveling and exhaustion. Some people also perform better than others with less sleep etc. It's way to easy to just say the game is volatile but not factor in any of these circumstances which could very well be the biggest reason of them losing to lesser players.
edit: also it's just stupid to compare sc2 and bw. Bw has a lot more closed tournament system than sc2 does, you need a progamer license which is very hard to get and then there are only a few player you will ever meet. It's way easier to prepare for these players since you know everyone and like I already said they have nearly no traveling. Also there were only 2 tournaments ( now just OSL ) and proleague to prepare for while most tournaments in sc2 are ones that go over the weekend and give you no time to prepare for your opponent. The only place that slightly resembles this is the GSL which does see quite some volatility but in the end mvp and nestea ( although slumping a bit ) and a few months ago MC would always come on top.
In response to the "closed system" comment: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233991 The most recent OSL had Pro-Am qualifiers (i.e: "no-names" were trying to qualify along with those with their licenses). Every single no-name got thrashed 2-0 in the first round by (for the most part) relatively unspectacular pros. And it's not like they prepared to face these particular players, they just simply outplayed them overall. You have cases where the better player overcomes tremendous disadvantages or build order losses through smart play and squeezing every inch out of every unit. Also, in Winner's League, you can't prepare for any particular player, yet the "All-Kill" phenomenon happens a lot every season of it.
In general, I'd be inclined to agree that spellcasting is way too powerful in SC2 - everything just melts because of the natural clumping. It also means that it is that much harder to scrape together a miraculous comeback (though, they still do happen) against an opponent, even the weaker ones. I'm going to wait for HotS beta to comment more on the new units - they're still untested and subject to huge changes - which will happen if the new abilities are as gamebreaking as people are assuming.
And this isn't the same as any open bracket tournament? Did you not see the Koreans trash all the random masters+ players at MLG providence?
EPT
