On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
Watch nestea vs ogstop on crossfire and youll know what i mean kthx
The game having wonky units/abilities +easier noob friendly mechanics and a lack of units with any depth to them (come you can't tell me the roach, marauder and the collosus have much depth to them at all.....) means that any scrub that plays 3-5 hours a day in master league is not far off as for being competitive with a pro player that plays 8-15 hours a day in a team house living and breathing for the game due to random allins that are next to impossible to scout even if the opponent messes up a lot of things and you play almost perfectly.
in any other competitive sport let's just use basketball as an example no random kid who shoots hoops in his back year a little bit could hop on the court and compete in the NBA. but that is possible with sc2 where it wasn't with bw which is what makes the idea of it being an esport not very legit.
This is complete hyperbole
And even if it were true (it isn't), none of it has anything to do with why, with all their supposed mechanical prowess from BW, ex-BW pros playing SC2 apparently can't manage 4 groups of units in different parts of the map at once despite the overall easier macro
Why is that
I mean, if any decent BW player can handle macroing off of 8 hatches in 3 different parts of the map while controlling large groups of zerglings in different parts of the map 12 at a time, why can decent SC2 players not even handle a large battle or two and a drop while macroing without screwing something up horribly
Or effectively split their units before/during engagements
Or incorporate infestors into their armies without throwing them away uselessly
Or, on a related note, handle managing their large army on more than one hotkey
Anytime a player manages to pull off one of the above things, they end up dominating the other player. But I see a lot of "pros" failing to successfully manage more difficult unit management/control. It has nothing to do with the skill ceiling and everything to do with the current level of play, which is slowly progressing as WoL gets older and older.
But I'm sure SC2 is totally "too easy" and players are totally playing "perfectly" and losing to bad strategies.
To completely say his argument is hyperbole in nature is totally flush his argument in to the toilet , I constantly refer to my argument that a amateur golfer compared to a pro golfer will never win a pro golfer in his game because , he is superiorly train to do the things to his do for a living . Same can be said for the mechanical demand needed to play broodwar at a higher level , he is saying that the skill ceiling for bw is much more higher than it is for sc2 , no where can a scrub beat Jaedong or flash in a best of 1000 of a game no matter how good he is .
Just like Ryan Fitzpatrick will never have a worse game than Tom Brady, right?
The mechanical demand needed to play SC:BW at a high level exists only because there are players SO GOOD that they have set the bar for play at that level. SC2's problem is that its pros have yet to set any sort of mechanical bar, because they can't consistently maintain their dominant mechanics.
The more mechanically sound player almost always wins in SC2, provided they make good decisions with the information at hand. SC2 pros are not at all consistent when it comes to their mechanics. They lose units, forget about units, have careless control, fail to control their third and fourth groups of units at the same time as their first and second, forget to build units, get supply blocked, fail to properly adjust their builds constantly. The issue isn't that there's an inherent low mechanical requirement to play SC2, it's that the current players are setting the bar too low by failing to be consistently awesome when it comes to mechanics.
edited to correct a few statements
Not even close, why do people who don't even play BW try to argue. I could take the time and say why every single thing you said is wrong but it would take too long and i would have trouble holding back the laughter. But really please stop even trying to argue.
Yeah, no you couldn't.
You can watch any tournament and absolutely cringe at some of the blunders and choices that SC2 pros make, even in Finals.
The primary difference between BW and SC2 is that you need to play very fast to be remotely efficient at basic game management once you get to 3+ bases, whereas in SC2 the basics are easier to manage. However, players aren't consistently translating the fewer actions/attention needed to manage basic macro into advanced/enhanced usage of their buildings and units-- when they're on, they dominate, when they're off, they lose in frustrating fashions to watch.
The "pro" mechanical floor in BW is so high because the top tier of players are all very effective when it comes to basic game management functions based on speed. The "pro" mechanical floor in SC2 is so low because the top tier of players are not all very effective when it comes to properly executing advanced game functions based on speed. As the top players get better and better at being all over the map at once, the mechanical barrier for entry into that tier of play will rise drastically.
The haters on these boards that treat non-BW and casual BW players like lower people disgust me. Just because you played BW doesn't make you all knowing when it comes to SC2. Anyway, I think that the game definitely has some promise and there is still plenty of time to adjust units and their stats. The beta for HOTS hasn't been released yet and there is yet another expansion after it. It's not like SC1 was well-balanced 1 year into its existence and it turned into a great game. If you don't want to play SC2, you aren't forced to. You always have the option to stick with SC1 if you so wish.
On December 05 2011 15:26 Voltimand wrote: The haters on these boards that treat non-BW and casual BW players like lower people disgust me. Just because you played BW doesn't make you all knowing when it comes to SC2. Anyway, I think that the game definitely has some promise and there is still plenty of time to adjust units and their stats. The beta for HOTS hasn't been released yet and there is yet another expansion after it. It's not like SC1 was well-balanced 1 year into its existence and it turned into a great game. If you don't want to play SC2, you aren't forced to. You always have the option to stick with SC1 if you so wish.
Great way to present your self , no one's coming here and advertising their stuff saying "hey you know what sc bw players are actually better than sc2 ", Just the fact that people who has minimal exposure in bw , exaggerate the bad ai in bw which put's people who have played broodwar off . Especially if you go back in few pages , he specifically used dragoon ai as a means of judging broodwar capability of being able to play as good as sc2 ,because bw has a terrible ai makes it a bad game you know ?, especially using " HERP DERP " to express his statement -_- , luckily I have vods to prove that he is wrong or I wouldn't sleep for many days thanks to that .
Lau: 'Heart Of The Swarm is probably going to be the equivalent of brood war was to Starcraft, I believe everyone will move over to it after the game is balanced out. Personally I dislike the Terran vs Protoss match up as it requires stutter stepping from the Terran to stand a chance in most battles, hopefully the new units will change this. Also the new units will open up a new set of strategies and play styles which I look forward to.'
Wow, I've found another progamer to be an anti-fan of. That rounds up the total to two. "Guys its just kinda bullshit that i actually have to USE my armies superior mobility to help me win fights, UGH!"
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.
So you like the positive sides of easy progamer life, but are unhappy about the game itself. You complain about the pathfinding and too powerfull aoe spells when almost no one splits their units effectively in combat. Only pro I've seen do it semi-regular is Puma when pre-emptively dodging storms and setting up flanks. You complain about spellcasters, when efficient spellcaster usage brings more ways to shine to the game. HotS doesn't bring any more AoE spells to the game, but it brings more ways to play better.
So all I have to say is that maybe you should appreciate your welfare and think positive about the game that enables you to compete, travel, get to know new people and make money.
What I think of the game and what I make out of it are two things that have no direct relation. I can think what I want of SC2 and still practice a lot, get better and have better results. I will practice like crazy in HotS unlike I did for WoL and I am sure I will have good results, but from what I've seen so far of that expansion I won't like it and I just said so. You say I should be grateful to the game itself (?!?) because it allows me to do what I like. This makes no sense.
At this point I just don't understand. Why would you be a professional gamer if you don't enjoy the game? I understand that the best in the world can make a LOT of money, but there can only be a handful of people who win the GSL, and even then, there are still a lot easier ways to make more money.
Seriously? cuz u never had any job that u didn't enjoy so you quit right on spot right? Why would he quit being an progamer just because he doesn't think the game is 100% yet? i think i speak for 95% of the BW community that the game is shit compared to SC:BW balance.
Even if he doesnt enjoy the game its his job to play it.
Who are these "bad players with decent results" that Cloud is talking about? I consider "decent results" to be stuff like Code A, top 8 NASL, Top 8 IPL, Top 8 MLG, etc. I don't see any bad players in those. I hope he's not talking about some online shit.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
What in the world are you even talking about? In the game I'm talking about (which is free to watch on gomtv), Nestea did have two Spores and 3 Queens up blindly. He also got lucky and saw the Banshees move out with his Overlord, and immediately threw down like 5 more Spores. Didn't matter, lost anyway. He anticipated a ground-based all-in and delayed his Spire in order to get more defense up. If he hadn't done that, he'd be safe against banshees, but vulnerable to a marine/tank all-in. It's not about greediness, you simply cannot be prepared for both at the same time.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
What in the world are you even talking about? In the game I'm talking about (which is free to watch on gomtv), Nestea did have two Spores and 3 Queens up blindly. He also got lucky and saw the Banshees move out with his Overlord, and immediately threw down like 5 more Spores. Didn't matter, lost anyway. He anticipated a ground-based all-in and delayed his Spire in order to get more defense up. If he hadn't done that, he'd be safe against banshees, but vulnerable to a marine/tank all-in. It's not about greediness, you simply cannot be prepared for both at the same time.
Says who?
That's really what pisses me off about all of this. All of the absolutes being thrown around. Who's to say that there won't develop a "standard" style of day that can adjust to either with good control and execution? Certainly not you. And Leenock certainly doesn't seem to have trouble with that sort of build on Bel'Shir. Why is that?
The entire point of denial of information is to leave your opponent in the dark about what you plan to do, and the game would be worse off if that were not a possibility. And you'd see a lot more 2-port banshee play alternating with ground-based all-ins if it were such a difficult thing to scout and handle as Z. There's a reason you don't see it much.
On December 05 2011 12:09 RampancyTW wrote: It's ridiculous to me that "pros" can lose all the time to misclicks, mismicros, not watching units, inappropriate responses to situations going on etc... and then complain about the lack of mechanical depth/difficulty of SC2.
It's ridiculous to me that every time you see a juggernaut player lose to a relative unknown, you can go back through the games and pick out exactly why they lost due to poor decision-making or mechanical missteps, yet people try to blame the game for it.
If the game is so easy, and so random, why is it that no player has come close to displaying either awareness-related or mechanical perfection on a consistent basis in SC2? Why is it that when players are nowhere near the skill ceiling, there are people claiming it's too low? We can't even see it. We're nowhere near it yet.
Builds that months ago were considered imbalanced are now standard fare. Hell, some builds that were persistently problematic for up to a year have found themselves less and less effective as players get better and better at recognizing and dealing with formerly "abusive" openings.
SC2 has yet to even begin to approach the level of play present in SC:BW. If/when it does, you can begin to draw valid comparisons and critiques about any randomness or skill ceiling. But when even the best players can't even consistently play merely well, why are we judging the game? Ugh.
During the GSL November Ro32, Nestea played against sC on Bel'Shir Beach, and lost to 2port Banshee. I dare you to watch that game and tell me what he could've done to know whether it was that, or a ground-based all-in (which is what he ended up preparing for).
You really don't need the game to be played for 5 years to notice stupid crap like this. Either you can scout it or you need a build that can deal with everything - and if that doesn't exist, you flip a coin and hope for the best. No matter what the skill ceiling is, nobody can make spine crawlers shoot up.
Finally, we won't really see any truly refined play in WoL, because HotS will arrive, destroy most of what has been developed up until that point, and then we'll enter another 6 month period where Blizzard will constantly nerf all the imbalanced crap they threw into the game, and continue to ignore the basic design problems that have been producing all these imbalances since WoL launch.
It's all from Zerg's greediness. Drones, drones, expand, expand... Build 2 spore crawlers and your problem solved.
Why should terran always be prepared to muta by placing turrets but zerg not?
The problem is zerg cannot scout it
Why not just predict? Why not put 2 spores?
Because that isn't good game design your just guessing
Are you kidding me or what? Bad game design to be prepared to air attack? And spend just few minerals to put some defense that doesn't hurt your economy whatsoever?
its fine to be prepared for everything but theres time where you cant tell at all. There were times in starcraft 1 like this as well like zvp before the corsair comes out
Let's talk about SC2. Not 1. And zerg lost not because of game-scouting-problem, but because of zerg's greediness. And this game really allows zerg to be greedy, and THAT is bad game design.
What in the world are you even talking about? In the game I'm talking about (which is free to watch on gomtv), Nestea did have two Spores and 3 Queens up blindly. He also got lucky and saw the Banshees move out with his Overlord, and immediately threw down like 5 more Spores. Didn't matter, lost anyway. He anticipated a ground-based all-in and delayed his Spire in order to get more defense up. If he hadn't done that, he'd be safe against banshees, but vulnerable to a marine/tank all-in. It's not about greediness, you simply cannot be prepared for both at the same time.
Ok, just watched it. Spores weren't coming until 4 banshees were already on the way. To begin the game, Nestea overreacted hard to a "proxy" 2-rax push (the one proxy rax was almost as far away as the normal one), which set him back a little bit. Oops.
Onto the 2-port Banshee piece: even if Nestea couldn't know whether or not a command center was being thrown down at all, sC was certainly on one base for an extended period of time. Keep lings outside his door, look for a push out. There was no reason to be so cautious with his overlords, especially once he gained map control. The second piece is: you know a one-base push is coming. Build queens! Do you know what's very effective in conjunction with spine crawlers? Queens with transfuse. Queens do as much dps vs. 0 armor as, and are tankier than, roaches, and don't cost larva. What are Queens also good against? Air.
So how to deal with it: Notice sC is still on one-base. Continue to poke front with zerglings. No obvious sign of command center: prepare for one base push. Get full mineral saturation on 2 bases, begin to stockpile larva while building queens. Use queens to fling creep around the map, while keeping the energy moderately high on the extras. Build 3-4 spines. T is on one base. With full mineral saturation, you're still ahead.
Building a lair was straight-up greedy. It's a terrible thing to sink resources into when you strongly suspect a 1-base push is coming, since lair tech takes a long time to kick in and start paying off. While being greedy, he failed to have spores/queens already in place to protect against the possibility of air. He got punished for it, and died because he was frustratingly cautious with his overlords and played greedy without even attempting to gain any information. If he responds properly, he crushes sC's play and makes him look stupid. By responding poorly,he made it look like a "coin flip" build when it really wasn't. Like I said, there's a reason you don't see more 2-port banshee shenanigans, and that's because it relies on your opponent playing stupid.
If you spot a command center instead of a huge all-in at any point, drop your third/lair up ASAP. Use your stockpiled money/larva to take all gases and pump a huge round of drones. Proceed as (delayed) normal.
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
He is just pointing out a glaring flaw in the "SC2 is crap compared to BW" argument.
That doesnt affect its overall bad gameplay i would play it if it was imbalanced but good and then he puts on a video of starcraft 7 years in 7 minutes and whats funny when you look at the patches of starcraft 1 is that they took a while to come out but there were so few the game was done with balance changes up at 1.08 in 2001 but with sc2 they have a new patch pretty much every 2 months or something and the players arent giving enough time to adapt so they just seem to get babied by blizzard for instance terran dont use ghosts they get lowered cost so they do use them then they get nerfed for being too strong same kinda thing with infestor but i beleive some zergs were starting to use that before the buff its so much cooler if a player figures out oh wait maybe this strategy from protoss isnt so good because i have this strategy instead of blizzard just doing it for them one thing i always wonder is what brood war would be like if it was patched like starcraft 2 was today
Lau: 'Heart Of The Swarm is probably going to be the equivalent of brood war was to Starcraft, I believe everyone will move over to it after the game is balanced out. Personally I dislike the Terran vs Protoss match up as it requires stutter stepping from the Terran to stand a chance in most battles, hopefully the new units will change this. Also the new units will open up a new set of strategies and play styles which I look forward to.'
Wow, I've found another progamer to be an anti-fan of. That rounds up the total to two. "Guys its just kinda bullshit that i actually have to USE my armies superior mobility to help me win fights, UGH!"
Heh, I felt the same way when I read that exact sentence.
Boohoo for terrans, I suppose. I guess Blizz isn't doing a good enough job of handing them their games on a silver platter?
/protoss.spite
On the topic of this article: I like the drive to go out there and poll the pros, but anybody else feel the opinions were a tad generic (no fault of the author, for what it's worth). I read through and only liked Incontrol's opinion, until he mentioned that he expects good things for the new toss units, and I couldn't take it seriously anymore.
On December 05 2011 15:01 Spicy_Curry wrote: I heard starcraft 1 was balanced and completely perfect one year after it came out.
thx for that incredibly insightful input...............
Yea no problem. Even after 1.08b much of the balancing came from mapmakers and not from blizzard. Without background knowledge on brood war there is no way to expect you to know that.
EPT
