On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote: No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments.
Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me".
it's a bit of a catch 22.
anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it.
You really shouldn't put much stock into competitive wow. It was never meant/designed to be a competitive game, and it has never gotten close to the level of balance or skill level that SC2 has now.
I think you really missed the point. I wasn't saying WoW was the epitome of skill until Blizzard screwed up. I'm saying that a game was perfectly fine until Blizzard screwed it up and the same thing could happen to SC2. Please don't turn this into a WoW vs SC2 debate... -.-
TBC was a good exp though :p
More to the point, the opinions run the gamut from excitement to bitterness and skew a bit negative. That is to be expected because people don't like change. The pro scene is constantly kicking people to the door and it is likely that HOTS will be the coup de gras for many of those guys who were interviewed. Self-preservation is a strong driving force!
I really like the Zerg/Terran changes and dislike the Protoss changes. As a whole I also think that Zerg and Toss needed another mineral dump (and didn't get one, but zerg got some other cool things), while terran needed some more gas options and ended up getting them. Maybe hydras and pheonix could become more mineral heavy, I'm not sure.
tbc > vanilla > cata = wotlk
;p at least on the "fun scale" maybe it just got stale for me after tbc
The Warhound for example might as well be a Goliath with splash damage.
Tempest might as well be a bigger Corsair with ground attack.
IDK about others but I really want the Corsair back instead of Tempest >.>.
Well about the bugs and the BW units, Dustin Browder made it very clear that they were not trying to remake BW. "If you want BW, go play BW" (That was what he said).
Having said that, I gotta agree with ClouD. New units will require a lot of balancing. And as if this wasn't hard enough, most of the units have very specific goals. I fear that the fact of having so many spellcasters in the game will make the game too micro oriented and less strategy/understanding-the-AI oriented. It's like moving away from Starcraft towards Warcraft.
There's a huge difference between being a carbon copy of BW and being a great sequel to an RTS that is similar but still different enough. (Also there is a difference between using what made BW great and applying it to the sequel vs just remaking the game exactly the same with better graphics. Though in this post I'll be talking about units rather than BW vs SC2, the Corsair is just an example since it's already been designed and can be used as reference.)
(Also Browder was also talking more along the mechanics (things like units clumping) rather than the units.)
Adding the Corsair into SC2 instead of the Tempest (for example) in no way makes it BW (well besides having similar units but hey the game already has the same three races as BW).
Also it's not taking a Goliath (for example) and giving it splash damage but calling it a Warhound does not make it a Goliath with splash damage.
Finally he was already open to the idea of the Warhound being just a Goliath with AA splash damage but just wasn't sure since it felt like a cop out to the players for reusing an existing unit, "not" because "if you want to play BW go play BW".
That's the thing though - I don't think it's a cop out if it fits into play perfectly. (Also there isn't even an existing "official" SC2 Corsair model >.>.)
So overall - Corsair needs to be brought back plox. David Kim or Dustin Browder are you reading >.>? Corsair can have more fancy game play mechanics than what seems to be attack-move Tempest.
Corsair and Phoenix can be the same thing. Just make Corsair require Dark Shrine or something (with Corsair upgrades being on DS) to synergize with Dark Templar.
Edit - The reason why I want the Corsair so much is because it would probably be better than the Tempest. I want SC2 to improve as a game. Just because the Corsair is a BW unit doesn't mean I want SC2 to become BW.
For example I wouldn't argue for the Lurker instead of the Swarm Host because the Swarm Host is not really that similar to the Lurker at all. They serve different roles. Also while the Swarm Host is boring to use for the player, it is not for the enemy (the enemy has to know how to defend against it) which makes it a good unit IMO (at least compared to "a-move" units).
The Swarm Host is an interesting unit on it's own.
However with the Tempest it's different.The Tempest so far seems like a lackluster unit because there's not that much micro potential or fancy stuff you do using it or against it that is any different from any other generic unit.
It's just another capital ship that's even less micro intensive than the Carrier. The Corsair being a spell caster + anti air specialist is a good alternative IMO and it can easily coexist with the Phoenix.
If it weren't for the fact that they replaced the Carrier with The Tempest (an AA splash damage dealer), I would have not be arguing for Corsair at all in this case. Since Blizzard did decide to want to add the Tempest in (mainly for anti air), I argue the Corsair has a lot more potential to be a better unit than the Tempest.
One last thing - It doesn't even have to be the Corsair but just something else (Again Corsair was chosen because it already exists and is easy to reference). Right now I think the Tempest is lacking as a good unit. Again it's simply an a-move unit with no fancy stuff. There's no unique ways to use the Tempest or to play against the Tempest as say with (for example) the Swarm Host or the Oracle.
Great post. I agree 100 %.
We all know by now that it isn't DB's goal to recreate Brood War with better graphics, but that doesn't mean that he can't use some of the aspects of Brood War that made it amazing, and bring those aspects to SC2.
I'm definitely not very impressed by the Tempest. Especially since they stated in the Oracle video that they wanted to make Protoss less deathball-y. The Tempest just seems like a unit that fits well into the deathball, since it is just another expensive Protoss AOE-unit.
I would much rather see either the Corsair again, or an upgrade to the phoenix to make them better against mutas. Mutas in pvz are a pain to deal with, but the Tempest doesn't seem to be the right solution. If phoenix were better against mutas in large numbers(perhaps through an upgrade that gave them aoe-damage with a radius the size of the thor attack's) it would solve some muta-related problems in the matchup.
Interesting view by Cloud - by his definition, we should've had many different GSL Champions then!
I also suggest that Cloud is by no means a top player - since he's the bad player now, he should take his own advice and take advantage of the ability to gamble and win against the good players.
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
I beg to differ. Playing safe is not underestimating your opponent, I think of it as the complete opposite. When you opt to play greedy vs someone you don't know or someone you regard as worse, that's when you are underestimating someone.
On December 04 2011 20:10 Azzur wrote: Interesting view by Cloud - by his definition, we should've had many different GSL Champions then!
I also suggest that Cloud is by no means a top player - since he's the bad player now, he should take his own advice and take advantage of the ability to gamble and win against the good players.
Seems like there is a change of hand who has been winning gsl , 2010 sambo intel Fruit dealer, 2010 sony erricson Nestea, 2010 Sony MC , that's only the 2010 , when I look downwards at the 2011 section , my jaw literally drop on the floor .So many players just win the gsl as if it's a common competition it's like an all shoot out turkey competition , anyone can just win the tournament .
Weird. Having played sc many years ago, (from release through broodwar rlease) then stopping for the last 3-4 years prior to sc2, then coming back to SCBW it was a very interesting experience. One can argue that mechanically BW was pretty intense. no multi-building select, no smart casting, etc. But sc2 certainly feels like an evolution in game design rather than 'more of the same'.
This argument about the clumping of units getting owned by AoE sounds so similar to the 'individual casting of spells' and unit pathing screwing up in BW except one thing: in BW players learned to deal with it. Some of the most 'exciting' feats of mechanical skill at face-value are just players fighting *against* the game's UI so it doesn't herp-derp against them (ie, microing dragoons around spider mines with the horrible pathing). What's interesting is I haven't seen much argument for players 'fighting against' the clumping of units in sc2 by microing them properly, or even having multiple control groups to fight better against aoe.
Despite some of the apparent 'reduced' skill to play sc2, I watch high level games and you can still see a *ton* of opportunities to play better mechanically (manually keeping your units from clumping constantly is one example that we're seeing rapidly evolve). I sometimes wonder if those that are disappointed in the 'skill ceiling' of sc2 in reality are trying to compare how their bw skills transfer to sc2, when in fact sc2 places less value on those and more value on 'newer' mechanical ideas, some of which have yet to even be seen in games or discovered yet.
On December 04 2011 20:34 Neotik wrote: Weird. Having played sc many years ago, (from release through broodwar rlease) then stopping for the last 3-4 years prior to sc2, then coming back to SCBW it was a very interesting experience. One can argue that mechanically BW was pretty intense. no multi-building select, no smart casting, etc. But sc2 certainly feels like an evolution in game design rather than 'more of the same'.
This argument about the clumping of units getting owned by AoE sounds so similar to the 'individual casting of spells' and unit pathing screwing up in BW except one thing: in BW players learned to deal with it. Some of the most 'exciting' feats of mechanical skill at face-value are just players fighting *against* the game's UI so it doesn't herp-derp against them (ie, microing dragoons around spider mines with the horrible pathing). What's interesting is I haven't seen much argument for players 'fighting against' the clumping of units in sc2 by microing them properly, or even having multiple control groups to fight better against aoe.
Despite some of the apparent 'reduced' skill to play sc2, I watch high level games and you can still see a *ton* of opportunities to play better mechanically (manually keeping your units from clumping constantly is one example that we're seeing rapidly evolve). I sometimes wonder if those that are disappointed in the 'skill ceiling' of sc2 in reality are trying to compare how their bw skills transfer to sc2, when in fact sc2 places less value on those and more value on 'newer' mechanical ideas, some of which have yet to even be seen in games or discovered yet.
I totally agree with you , the ai is so horrible in this situation , bisu should just smash his keyboard and say I quit man damn horrible ai made me lose the game .
Oh tempest also must have complained about the bad ai you know , they usually freezes in the middle of your attack command and lose the game to light's proxy racks marine push , after all bad ai prevails over good players .
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
Naniwa made horrible mistakes in the series and Cloud was abble to win thx to naniwa's mistakes, thats how tvp works. Troll more.
Im sorry your feelings got hurt, Cloud. But im sorry, i also consider you mid tier foreigner, and that is based on your games. Feel free to disagree, but the results speaks for itself. That said, im not sure why you see that as a "bad" thing, i mean, being mid tier foreigner still means, your pretty good. Now we are past the "emo" part, i have to say , that i agree with your view on the HOTS units, they seem gimmicky, boring, to the extreme.
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
if what you are implying here was true and cloud was way worse than naniwa wouldnt that prove his point ? atleast make some sense before you decide to troll.
@BansheeDK - Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it .
Anyway about Cloud - I agree with him at least in the sense that I feel that Blizzard could make SC2 much better than it is.
IMO the Oracle is fine. Only new units I am concerned about are the Replicant (not a bad unit by itself but it feels wrong for Protoss to have to use other race's units) and the Tempest (because it's an a-move unit).
Weird. Having played sc many years ago, (from release through broodwar rlease) then stopping for the last 3-4 years prior to sc2, then coming back to SCBW it was a very interesting experience. One can argue that mechanically BW was pretty intense. no multi-building select, no smart casting, etc. But sc2 certainly feels like an evolution in game design rather than 'more of the same'.
This argument about the clumping of units getting owned by AoE sounds so similar to the 'individual casting of spells' and unit pathing screwing up in BW except one thing: in BW players learned to deal with it. Some of the most 'exciting' feats of mechanical skill at face-value are just players fighting *against* the game's UI so it doesn't herp-derp against them (ie, microing dragoons around spider mines with the horrible pathing). What's interesting is I haven't seen much argument for players 'fighting against' the clumping of units in sc2 by microing them properly, or even having multiple control groups to fight better against aoe.
Despite some of the apparent 'reduced' skill to play sc2, I watch high level games and you can still see a *ton* of opportunities to play better mechanically (manually keeping your units from clumping constantly is one example that we're seeing rapidly evolve). I sometimes wonder if those that are disappointed in the 'skill ceiling' of sc2 in reality are trying to compare how their bw skills transfer to sc2, when in fact sc2 places less value on those and more value on 'newer' mechanical ideas, some of which have yet to even be seen in games or discovered yet.
Besides unclumping your units manually, there isn't any more mechanical stuff that SC2 has compared to BW.
As for BW skill coming from fighting the UI or so - True but it's still a valid part of the game.
Even in BW era stuff like automine could exist but Blizzard chose not do it for some reason (In Starcraft 64 there was automining. Even after SC64 came out, Blizzard never added automining to BW in a patch).
Now I'm not saying having to fight the UI is a good thing. There's a compromise that should be taken (that's why people aren't complaining that BW is too easy compared to say WC2 where there wasn't even queuing - BW has a good balance).
Though I'm not for changing SC2's mechanics right now. We'll have to see whether the game really requires it (it's still too early to tell). What I want is for Blizzard to be open to change "if" it is found that such things would improve the game. If removing smart casting (for example) would make SC2 a better game (by moving towards more of a balance of strategy vs mechanics) then I think Blizzard should be open to it.
On December 04 2011 22:44 Goldfish wrote: @BansheeDK - Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it .
Anyway about Cloud - I agree with him at least in the sense that I feel that Blizzard could make SC2 much better than it is.
IMO the Oracle is fine. Only new units I am concerned about are the Replicant (not a bad unit by itself but it feels wrong for Protoss to have to use other race's units) and the Tempest (because it's an a-move unit).
Yeah the replicant is terrible. I can already imagine protoss camping to death like usual and fortifying their defense with infestors and siege tanks. Really just fix the game already and add 1 good unit instead of a lot of random shit. People will buy the game for single player anyway there's no need to fuck up esport so bad.
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.
Why won't they? Are they afraid it would hurt esports or all of that ciclejerk? Are people that weakminded? Being honest is such an hard thing to do? Blizzard won't change shit (implying there's stuff to change of course) if relevant people in the community don't drop this thin veil of hypocrity, highlight stuff etc, bring issues to the table, give out advices out and loud, since an expansion is coming in 2012.
I'm sick, soo sick by this, I cannot stand hypocrites. If something's SHITTY, if something's BAD or CAN BE IMPROVED, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TALK ABOUT IT. Things WON'T get better magically or whatever, blizzard cannot figure out everything by themselves (as much as they would love to, arrogants as they are).
You know what? The very fact you are bringing up this issue, shows that deep down you actually CARE about the game, (ofc you do, it's your job lol).
Remember guys, being blind fanboys is BAD for everything in the world, criticizing and judging shows that you actually care/like something enough to spend portions of your time improving it.
On December 04 2011 22:44 Goldfish wrote: @BansheeDK - Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it .
Anyway about Cloud - I agree with him at least in the sense that I feel that Blizzard could make SC2 much better than it is.
IMO the Oracle is fine. Only new units I am concerned about are the Replicant (not a bad unit by itself but it feels wrong for Protoss to have to use other race's units) and the Tempest (because it's an a-move unit).
Yeah the replicant is terrible. I can already imagine protoss camping to death like usual and fortifying their defense with infestors and siege tanks. Really just fix the game already and add 1 good unit instead of a lot of random shit. People will buy the game for single player anyway there's no need to fuck up esport so bad.
Agreed. Now I'm one of the supporters of "wait for beta before getting into major debates" but with units like the Tempest or Replicant (for example) you can already see what's wrong with them. The Tempest is a boring a-move unit while the Replicant is a unit with the sole purpose is to use units from other races (which feels very wrong especially if we want SC2 to have 3 distinct races).
In either case I'm not saying that units won't work but I'm saying there is much room for improvement. Going for "it just works" is fine in certain cases but what we should do is go for "making it the best we could make it".
It's good to discuss it now because maybe it will help give insight to Blizzard sooner than normal.
Hopefully the HotS beta will last a long time with much player feedback incorporated.
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.
Why won't they? Are they afraid it would hurt esports or all of that ciclejerk? Are people that weakminded? Being honest is such an hard thing to do? Blizzard won't change shit (implying there's stuff to change of course) if relevant people in the community don't drop this thin veil of hypocrity, highlight stuff etc, bring issues to the table, give out advices out and loud, since an expansion is coming in 2012.
I'm sick, soo sick by this, I cannot stand hypocrites. If something's SHITTY, if something's BAD or CAN BE IMPROVED, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TALK ABOUT IT. Things WON'T get better magically or whatever, blizzard cannot figure out everything by themselves (as much as they would love to, arrogants as they are).
You know what? The very fact you are bringing up this issue, shows that deep down you actually CARE about the game, (ofc you do, it's your job lol).
Remember guys, being blind fanboys is BAD for everything in the world, criticizing and judging shows that you actually care/like something enough to spend portions of your time improving it.
Agreed.
Day9 has shown to really like BW. I definitely do feel a lot of pro gamers aren't voicing their opinions or at least providing ways for Blizzard to make SC2 a better game as a whole.
For example I don't think any pro gamer (besides Cloud) has really talked or discussed the new units for HotS and whether the new units in HotS can be improved or not.
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
rofl youre not making sense. Lets assume that cloud was a "bad" player, then theres still no double standard about it, it would just support that his opinion is true.
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
I beg to differ. Playing safe is not underestimating your opponent, I think of it as the complete opposite. When you opt to play greedy vs someone you don't know or someone you regard as worse, that's when you are underestimating someone.
How so? Assuming that the greedy build isnt something that is easily punishable, I really dont see how its underestimating someone. You take a bit of a risk so that you can play from an advantage, making it easier to play than on even ground, I dont think that means youre underestimating your opponent in the slightest. Playing safe on the other hand can mean that you think youre fine as long as you dont get caught off guard, then youre gonna outplay your opponent in the later stages of the game.
Tvp is abosllutely broken. Boring matchup and way too easy for mediocore toss players to win. At hots both races will require a lot of skill to win, and terran will be able to use mech .
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
rofl youre not making sense. Lets assume that cloud was a "bad" player, then theres still no double standard about it, it would just support that his opinion is true.
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote: Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
I beg to differ. Playing safe is not underestimating your opponent, I think of it as the complete opposite. When you opt to play greedy vs someone you don't know or someone you regard as worse, that's when you are underestimating someone.
How so? Assuming that the greedy build isnt something that is easily punishable, I really dont see how its underestimating someone. You take a bit of a risk so that you can play from an advantage, making it easier to play than on even ground, I dont think that means youre underestimating your opponent in the slightest. Playing safe on the other hand can mean that you think youre fine as long as you dont get caught off guard, then youre gonna outplay your opponent in the later stages of the game.
Our definitions of greedy differs then. Greedy for me is something that will be easily punishable by blind all-ins and such. You don't want to play like that vs someone you feel you can beat if you can take it to the mid to late game. Doing so, to me, feels a bit ignorant and you are just underestimating your opponents ability to punish your greedyness early on.
EDIT: Also why would you take small risks to get on "even grounds" if you think you can beat your opponent in the mid/late game? Playing safe sacrificies this because that extra gain you get from playing greedy vs an inferior opponent often results in you losing to something all-inish rather than taking it to the mid/late game.
On December 04 2011 20:08 darkness wrote: Cloud talking about bad players winning against good players is....... hmm.. Didn't he win against NaNiwa? Double standard?
Not necessarily a double standard. Unless he felt like he won because he abused a gamble aspect of the game.
He's not saying that he's the best, or anything like that.
EPT
