|
More spellcasting = making the game like WC3 = terrible.
|
Most of the professionals have valid complaints, but I'm sure HoTS will be fine. Cloud's a baby. <3
|
On December 04 2011 04:06 BlueBoxSC wrote:
Most of the professionals have valid complaints, but I'm sure HoTS will be fine. Cloud's a baby. <3
hi random mainstream american, i was talking about you just a few posts above
|
On December 04 2011 02:31 dignitas.merz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 02:10 Elefanto wrote: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 funny thing about that merz is HuK is one of the more consistent foreigners 
Amen my brother in arms.
|
Infused.Tt Lau
LLL.Orly
aTnCloud
BlinG
I've never even heard of these players, it's really hard to value their opinion more than the average poster on TL forums.
|
cloud, outside of the bullshit in threads like this on tealmliquid. you are a well respected progamer to the fans who truely follow the game. your thoughts and ideas are very well respected and you have shown to have a great mind for balance and gameplay. i still remember your interview from ages and ages ago where you were even suggesting huge nerfs to your own race(ie banshee 3 shotting workers etc)
almost every post that has been negative towards you reads like a 12 year old and it makes me sad. its great to hear you are practicing more then ever and keep up your no bullshit stance on things. unlike idra who is really just playing up his persona 100x to keep his brand growing you sir are a genuine unapologetic sc2 player who speaks his mind.
good day sir and fuck the window licking mouth breathers who think they know a god damn thing about this game outside of what they have been told by either day9 or their favourite progamer. people like idra and day9 shape the discourse on balance and gameplay more then most would think and more then they should. it also creates this unhealthy rhetoric on forums that just reads bullshit.
and to every idiot who replies to cloud with "lol just because you havent won any tournamentsgo cry in a corner baby" i hope a fridge falls on you.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 04 2011 04:20 kafkaesque wrote:
Infused.Tt Lau
LLL.Orly
aTnCloud
BlinG
I've never even heard of these players, it's really hard to value their opinion more than the average poster on TL forums.
your ignorance disgusts me.
|
On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 03:19 MichaelJLowell wrote:On December 04 2011 02:10 Elefanto wrote: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.
Firstly, I can't be sure exactly what your point is in this post. I have interpreted it as the following:
1. Casters (such as Day9) do not call other players bad because the people watching them will no like the casters less if they do. Since a caster's income is based on the number of people watching him, there is no motivation to tell the truth about bad players.
2. Players don't usually speak their minds because they want to have positive reputations and good public images which will help them be more successful commercially.
1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers. That's absolutely nothing compared to today. And there weren't commercials then either. I am extremely disappointed that you would suggest, even subtly imply that Day9 pulls punches because he's motivated by money. Day9 may pull punches, but it is NOT because he wants more money. If he does, it's because he admires people trying to make a profession out of what they love to do, and it's because he wants to show them the respect they deserve. This is an admiration and a respect you seem to have lost for your peers. Day9 is NOT motivated by money-- he is motivated by passion and by a desire to do what he loves.
Additionally, there are plenty of successful casters who don't pull punches. Tastosis regularly says that one player is absurdly worse than his opponent.
2. This assertion is a much more fair assessment of the professional scene, but I challenge whole-heartedly the negative connotation you give to this. It is good that players want a good public image. It's good that players care about how the public feels about their image-- if people like professional players, then they are more likely to watch tournaments and get involved with the scene. The more people in eSports, the more money in eSports, and there will be more people in eSports if players manage their public image well.
|
On December 04 2011 04:16 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 02:31 dignitas.merz wrote:On December 04 2011 02:10 Elefanto wrote: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 funny thing about that merz is HuK is one of the more consistent foreigners Amen my brother in arms.
There are so many variables in SC2 its kinda pointless to see a favorite lose to an unknown and say its due to nature of SC2. You'd have to look at each game and see what mistakes the better player did. You take HuK as an example and its sometimes really visible that he played below his potential due to jetlag/exhaustion etc. He is the first to tell you he played really bad some events.
Its not the games fault if you see your favorite player doing really bad strategical mistakes, even if he had the scouting knowledge to do better decisions. On top of that I think everyone agrees that SC2 is a lot more unforgiving on micro, if you lack attention for 2 seconds you can lose your whole army (for example Idra's mutalisks against Sjow on recent MLG). But that in itself is not randomness or coin-flippiness of the game, but instead of having to macro perfect in BW you need to be perfectly situation aware in SC2.
|
On December 04 2011 04:28 mbr2321 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote:On December 04 2011 03:19 MichaelJLowell wrote:On December 04 2011 02:10 Elefanto wrote: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. 1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers.
So Day9 is the perfect human being? Our world is ruled by sex and money, and I doubt that the first one is really important in sc2 atm.
|
On December 04 2011 04:20 kafkaesque wrote:
Infused.Tt Lau
LLL.Orly
aTnCloud
BlinG
I've never even heard of these players, it's really hard to value their opinion more than the average poster on TL forums.
you are clueless
|
On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote:
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.
I have no problem with IdrA's honesty, only the fact he doesn't win a quarter of the tournaments necessary to be the guy who smashes keyboards and no-shows consolation matches. And if you guys want to insinuate that Day9 didn't want to take a stance on the issue because it costs him money, I'd have to see something in-writing that corroborates it. Yes, he's not going to be the guy who comes out and criticizes Blizzard for the de-facto control of the StarCraft II scene that they've created with Battle.net 2.0 and their army of lawyers. And honestly, I wouldn't expect him to do that.
Potential cheerleading aside, what I see when I look at Day9 is one of the few StarCraft players in the community that shares similarities with Seth Killian and David Sirlin, two guys whose pro gaming accolades were built by a fighting game scene that spends months and years looking for ways to defeat imbalances. And consequently, I consider the writing of David Sirlin and Seth Killian to be some of the most valuable out there on the topic of competitive video games. Whether it's a mere persona that Day9 puts on for the purpose of selling his Dailies (and absolutely nothing suggests to me that it is), that persona is the right attitude. Fighting game players accept that "imbalance" is relative to the metagame (where underpowered and weak strategies and characters may someday become mid-and-high-tier characters) and don't complain about it. If the character is too weak, they change the character. And if they find out that imbalance makes the game no fun to play, they play a different video game, which is something the real-time strategy community (built on the idea that players can complain to the developer and they'll put out a balance patch) doesn't seem able to figure out.
The reason I brought up Day9's StarCraft expertise is that every single time I watch any other competitive StarCraft player speak, they cannot fathom the game in any terms that do not invoke the names of StarCraft units, buildings, build orders, or races. They cannot discuss StarCraft without placing themselves in a tight bubble and invoking the game mechanics as they apply to StarCraft: Brood War or StarCraft II and nothing else. Theory gets people places. Hypotheticals such as "The Replicant is a gimmick and it shouldn't be a part of StarCraft because it's not StarCraft-y", for instance, does not get people anywhere because it does not account for the future of the metagame and the future of game balance. And most importantly, it does not speak for whether or not it will make the game more fun to play. The chief goal of the game is to be fun, not to protect the salaries of players or a company advertising model that says "Hey, look at our game! Our game is played in arenas! For money! Buy our game!"
The inability of Dustin Browder and Blizzard Entertainment to cater to a group of players who can only think within that bubble has resulted in the issues that now plague the game. Everybody knew that when multiple-building selection was removed, something had to be added back into the game. Larger maps, more complex strategy, more units. And every single suggestion that would have made the game more complex has been shut down by the community because "It's not StarCraft". And because of it, you have ended up with a stripped-down version of StarCraft: Brood War that lacks the incredible mechanical dexterity that defined StarCraft: Brood War. That's what has this game in the mess it's in to begin with. And if StarCraft II is not good enough to be played competitively, then you do what the competitive fighting game community does: Play a different game.
Those players don't continue to whine about it. They grind down and play the game and deal with it. You can go do what Leenock is doing. Instead of complaining, he's taking on the fucking world at the age of sixteen and kicking the shit out of just about everything and everyone who gets in the way. He is the future of StarCraft II, as is Jjakji, the guy who beat Leenock in a GSL final at the age of seventeen. And if you think the reason you haven't won twenty-seven-straight GSLs is because "the game is too volatile" (despite the fact that the Koreans still dominate every single tournament and still tear the West into ribbons, just as they did in Brood War), I'll be blunt: Go home, forfeit the money, and go play the game on your off time. Play the game when it is enjoyable to you. Or, even better, go play Brood War with the five-hundred remaining Koreans on ICCUP. I know it's stressful to play StarCraft eight-to-ten hours a day and do it because it's your job, but I don't tolerate players who constantly bitch and complain about a video game and continue to play it anyway, because eventually, people are going to think this is the foundation that TeamLiquid.net has been built upon. The world of difference between the fighting game and real-time strategy communities is inconceivable and I'm starting to get sick of it. So I ask you:
On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote:
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.
What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
|
On December 04 2011 04:28 mbr2321 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote:On December 04 2011 03:19 MichaelJLowell wrote:On December 04 2011 02:10 Elefanto wrote: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. Firstly, I can't be sure exactly what your point is in this post. I have interpreted it as the following: 1. Casters (such as Day9) do not call other players bad because the people watching them will no like the casters less if they do. Since a caster's income is based on the number of people watching him, there is no motivation to tell the truth about bad players. 2. Players don't usually speak their minds because they want to have positive reputations and good public images which will help them be more successful commercially. 1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers. That's absolutely nothing compared to today. And there weren't commercials then either. I am extremely disappointed that you would suggest, even subtly imply that Day9 pulls punches because he's motivated by money. Day9 may pull punches, but it is NOT because he wants more money. If he does, it's because he admires people trying to make a profession out of what they love to do, and it's because he wants to show them the respect they deserve. This is an admiration and a respect you seem to have lost for your peers. Day9 is NOT motivated by money-- he is motivated by passion and by a desire to do what he loves. Additionally, there are plenty of successful casters who don't pull punches. Tastosis regularly says that one player is absurdly worse than his opponent. 2. This assertion is a much more fair assessment of the professional scene, but I challenge whole-heartedly the negative connotation you give to this. It is good that players want a good public image. It's good that players care about how the public feels about their image-- if people like professional players, then they are more likely to watch tournaments and get involved with the scene. The more people in eSports, the more money in eSports, and there will be more people in eSports if players manage their public image well.
Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
|
On December 04 2011 04:32 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 04:28 mbr2321 wrote:On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote:On December 04 2011 03:19 MichaelJLowell wrote:On December 04 2011 02:10 Elefanto wrote: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. 1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers. So Day9 is the perfect human being? Our world is ruled by sex and money, and I doubt that the first one is really important in sc2 atm.
Did I ever say that Day9 was a perfect human being? No. In a cruel world, and in a hostile environment men are dogs-- and it is a world where the dog eats the dog. I am sure that Sean Plott has his vices-- his problems and his trials and tribulations-- but inside the StarCraft community, inside this haven of entertainment and passion-- Day9 is a perfect voice for the community. With regards to StarCraft, Day9 is exactly what the community should represent and reflect-- he is perfection in StarCraft-- maybe not as a player, but as a contributor.
|
On December 04 2011 04:36 aTnClouD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 04:28 mbr2321 wrote:On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote:On December 04 2011 03:19 MichaelJLowell wrote:On December 04 2011 02:10 Elefanto wrote: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. Firstly, I can't be sure exactly what your point is in this post. I have interpreted it as the following: 1. Casters (such as Day9) do not call other players bad because the people watching them will no like the casters less if they do. Since a caster's income is based on the number of people watching him, there is no motivation to tell the truth about bad players. 2. Players don't usually speak their minds because they want to have positive reputations and good public images which will help them be more successful commercially. 1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers. That's absolutely nothing compared to today. And there weren't commercials then either. I am extremely disappointed that you would suggest, even subtly imply that Day9 pulls punches because he's motivated by money. Day9 may pull punches, but it is NOT because he wants more money. If he does, it's because he admires people trying to make a profession out of what they love to do, and it's because he wants to show them the respect they deserve. This is an admiration and a respect you seem to have lost for your peers. Day9 is NOT motivated by money-- he is motivated by passion and by a desire to do what he loves. Additionally, there are plenty of successful casters who don't pull punches. Tastosis regularly says that one player is absurdly worse than his opponent. 2. This assertion is a much more fair assessment of the professional scene, but I challenge whole-heartedly the negative connotation you give to this. It is good that players want a good public image. It's good that players care about how the public feels about their image-- if people like professional players, then they are more likely to watch tournaments and get involved with the scene. The more people in eSports, the more money in eSports, and there will be more people in eSports if players manage their public image well. Day9 gets an insane amount of money because he got famous with his dailies and other activities. If anything I noticed that the more time passed the more he catered to mainstream public and less to a strict elitist rts group of people. I don't know Day9 well enough to say what he really thinks (and even if I did I wouldn't out of respect for him) but I know for sure many progamers and casters are just not speaking honestly their mind when they talk about the game in public.
If you are talking about other casters, then don't mention Day9 by name. You are unfairly calling him out on something he doesn't do, and you're trying to use HIS image to fuel your cynical tirade against eSports. If you mean other casters, say "Casters" not "]Day9 and other casters"
EDIT: fixed misquote
|
On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote:
What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like?
I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
|
On December 04 2011 04:39 aTnClouD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote:
What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like? I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one.
Go back and read what I wrote. Don't skip to the bottom of the post and ignore everything else I had to say.
|
On December 04 2011 02:41 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 02:31 dignitas.merz wrote:On December 04 2011 02:10 Elefanto wrote: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.
Regurgitation, awesome!
Players like HuK and IdrA (who make appearances at most majors) should be used to the travel schedule by now. There are some things you can control and some things you cannot. Those are minor excuses. Jet-lag is nothing more than an overused cop-out in most cases. You will get sick regardless if you don't take the proper precautions. With that said, we're seeing more and more players who travel around a lot flying out a few days to a week prior. A few days is more than enough.
As for your spiel about tournament formats. Um, no? When it comes to preparation, BW players have to prepare more because of the competition level. If you make it on the A-team you've already proven your worth. The amount of preparation they have to do before each match is tenfold especially with the new format. We only see the best of the best. Look into the death stare. Tell me what you see?
Sure, their practice is more focused because they only have one map in PL, but they give it their all. The amount of preparation that goes into individual leagues is just as rough as well. Traveling has nothing to do with BW. We're talking about the overall design of the game man and let's face it. There are plenty of things Blizzard can do to make it better.
GSL is no different from the BW leagues-- the same fucking principles apply and guess what? The GSL is living proof that the game is volatile and this won't change anytime soon.
With that said, there are still major flaws in the game design.
BTW Cloud is spot on about Sean. Promoting the game has become his job and you will always see him take a step back before he answers any touchy subject. Not the first time I say this either. Sean's a master at self-editing himself. It's smart on his part to take all the time in the world to construct his answers to such controversial things.
|
On December 04 2011 04:40 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 04:39 aTnClouD wrote:On December 04 2011 04:36 MichaelJLowell wrote:
What is your purpose in playing a video game that you clearly do not like? I like competing, I like traveling, I like knowing new people and I like the idea of making money out of it. I'm not the only one. Go back and read what I wrote. Don't skip to the bottom of the post and ignore everything else I had to say.
You asked a question and I kindly answered. The rest of that post is just bs and I will also give you a tip: if you want to be taken seriously don't tell people what to do and don't bold words randomly when you write your stuff.
|
On December 04 2011 04:37 mbr2321 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 04:32 sAsImre wrote:On December 04 2011 04:28 mbr2321 wrote:On December 04 2011 03:30 aTnClouD wrote:On December 04 2011 03:19 MichaelJLowell wrote:On December 04 2011 02:10 Elefanto wrote: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. 1. I could not disagree with you more. Day9 doesn't cast because he wants money-- he does not do SotG to get money. He doesn't do Day9 dailies for the money-- not even close. He's been absorbed in the world of StarCraft since well before their was any money in the analytic scene. In the early days, Day9 was ecstatic that he almost had 1000 viewers. So Day9 is the perfect human being? Our world is ruled by sex and money, and I doubt that the first one is really important in sc2 atm. Did I ever say that Day9 was a perfect human being? No. In a cruel world, and in a hostile environment men are dogs-- and it is a world where the dog eats the dog. I am sure that Sean Plott has his vices-- his problems and his trials and tribulations-- but inside the StarCraft community, inside this haven of entertainment and passion-- Day9 is a perfect voice for the community. With regards to StarCraft, Day9 is exactly what the community should represent and reflect-- he is perfection in StarCraft-- maybe not as a player, but as a contributor.
What Day9 does with Starcraft 2 is making a living of it, making a living of his passion which is great. But that doesn't mean that you have to think twice about what you do when it's related to your fragile income. He might say exactly what he's thinking (I hope not, sometimes it's just hilarious to see him being excited about trivial stuff) but that would be rare exception; a perfect human being in this regard
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
