|
I feel like HoTS is gonna suck to ;s
|
This seems to be the only sport or competition where the people complain this much about "losing because of luck".
Is it pure skill when a sudden wind draft moves your game-winning field goal to the left, and turns it into a game-losing miss? Chance is a part of any competition. How are you going to take all luck out of the field of play? With chess it's possible because the rules are simple, they are the same for both sides, and everything is geometric; also you can see the entire field of play and analyze it.
Don't know who said it but:
"The guy who loses lost because of bad luck. The champion makes his own luck."
|
On December 03 2011 08:40 aTnClouD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 08:32 VanGarde wrote:On December 03 2011 07:35 noxn wrote: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. I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement. There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win. By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
HOTS appears to be moving away from the deathball style of play with units like the shredder, oracle, swarm host, nexus recall, etc. You should be optimistic, if anything.
|
On December 03 2011 06:57 Purind wrote:Show nested quote +
Whether that is good for the game or bad makes me nervous as a guy who plays this game every day all day and on the biggest stages. I hope the transition is as smooth as possible but like I said, it just makes me nervous. The stuff proposed however seems pretty cool.. especially if you are a Protoss player. But we will see!'
Interesting that he likes the protoss units. With T and Z units, I'm thinking "If they tweak things, it could be neat" but there's absolutely nothing about Protoss I'm looking forward to
The Tempest kind of sucks, I'll admit it, but the oracle is EXTREMELY OP atm and the replicant has so many crazy applications that it should probably become one of the best units in the game. Imagine siege tanks replacing colossi as the extremely bulky deathball protects them far better than a Terran army or building your opponent's worker and getting his entire tech tree. Also, recall for nexus is incredibly OP and the same goes for the arc shield.
|
Damn no IdrA. But White Ra delivered all the entertainment we need <3
|
On December 03 2011 08:52 D_K_night wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 08:40 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 08:32 VanGarde wrote:On December 03 2011 07:35 noxn wrote: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. I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement. There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win. By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones. Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from - AoE damage is just too high. That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz. I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)? Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily?
Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now.
About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
|
On December 03 2011 08:59 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
This seems to be the only sport or competition where the people complain this much about "losing because of luck".
Is it pure skill when a sudden wind draft moves your game-winning field goal to the left, and turns it into a game-losing miss? Chance is a part of any competition. How are you going to take all luck out of the field of play? With chess it's possible because the rules are simple, they are the same for both sides, and everything is geometric; also you can see the entire field of play and analyze it.
Don't know who said it but:
"The guy who loses lost because of bad luck. The champion makes his own luck."
It's easy to speak when you can just put random cool sentences in there without giving any logical reasoning on the subject.
|
On December 03 2011 09:02 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 08:40 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 08:32 VanGarde wrote:On December 03 2011 07:35 noxn wrote: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. I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement. There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win. By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones. HOTS appears to be moving away from the deathball style of play with units like the shredder, oracle, swarm host, nexus recall, etc. You should be optimistic, if anything.
Not sure if he should. HotS is introducing new units that are extremely different from WoL, something that should not be lost considering how it could still be argued that we are not yet balanced enough in WoL, let alone something that is going to be so different that almost everything we did previously is going to just be thrown up in the air.
|
On December 03 2011 08:59 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
This seems to be the only sport or competition where the people complain this much about "losing because of luck".
Is it pure skill when a sudden wind draft moves your game-winning field goal to the left, and turns it into a game-losing miss? Chance is a part of any competition. How are you going to take all luck out of the field of play? With chess it's possible because the rules are simple, they are the same for both sides, and everything is geometric; also you can see the entire field of play and analyze it.
Don't know who said it but:
"The guy who loses lost because of bad luck. The champion makes his own luck."
Yeeaahh... no. A game like SC2 should have as little luck as possible. It is a competitive RTS, after all. The micro in BW was the kind of thing that I wish we had more of in BW, allowing good players to squash the bad players no matter how good their coinflip strategy or lucky move was that round.
Also, how the heck does one go about "making his own luck"? By definition, luck cannot be made, only happened upon.
|
It's easy to speak when you can just put random cool sentences in there without giving any logical reasoning on the subject.
Lolwut? Exactly what did you want?
"Oh buddy! You're just absolutely right about everything! Yeah! All those bad players beating all those good players just cause of luck! Yep!"
I don't agree with you, dude. I think it's 1) whining, and 2) untrue. And yeah it's easy to speak (write actually, but I digress) because... well... I do have fingers. I do know the language. It's pretty easy to write out a coherent thought if you have those two skills.
What logical reasoning did you put up?
|
Also, how the heck does one go about "making his own luck"?
I don't know, but I think there is a reason why thousands of professional sports players, coaches, and refs have said the same thing...
It's like this:
Most people will lose because of bad luck. Most champions experience the same bad luck, but they are prepared for it, fight through it, do whatever they have to do to win.
Like I (kind of) said: you can worry about luck all day. 1) It isn't going away and 2) it isn't why someone is losing.
|
On December 03 2011 09:06 aTnClouD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 08:52 D_K_night wrote:On December 03 2011 08:40 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 08:32 VanGarde wrote:On December 03 2011 07:35 noxn wrote: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. I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement. There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win. By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones. Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from - AoE damage is just too high. That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz. I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)? Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily? Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
Would an early baneling bust vs a Terran depot wall-in qualify for your above comments? How about a sudden roach build vs reactor-fac hellions?
I can definitely say I've lost outright many a time against those as Terran, in many ways I blame myself for not having scouted better or scanned, but I see even pros lose to those, soooo....
|
I think that in hots blizzard should strengthen "safe play" in relationship to all-ins/risky builds. I don't mind the strong aoe spells because they can be mitigated by spreading out your units and that's a skill in the current state of the game. I hope that they introduces and removes powerful/massable 1a units to encourage positioning and board control.
|
Clouds argument is really offensive...but i completely agree. The gamble aspect is ridiculous and really bad players have chances against the top pros. They are trying to make it too generalised like WoW which is great for sales, but really sad for the competitive scene
|
Thor removal is good, but a Colossus replacement would do improve SC2 exponentially, IMO. I also think they shouldn't have said which units they planned on removing because now Carriers/Mothership/Thor will be ignored, whereas if they held their cards close to their chest, they might become more viable (EG carrier-friendly maps like BW).
|
On December 03 2011 09:19 archonOOid wrote:
I think that in hots blizzard should strengthen "safe play" in relationship to all-ins/risky builds. I don't mind the strong aoe spells because they can be mitigated by spreading out your units and that's a skill in the current state of the game. I hope that they introduces and removes powerful/massable 1a units to encourage positioning and board control.
I also wonder about island maps too. Since warcraft 3 we have not seen any island maps unless maybe the reason for that, is it's too restrictive of play or too slanted towards certain races?
Just my opinion but if a unit is designed as a "siege" type unit, it should be two or more of the below:
- hard to maneuver(significantly slower than your main army)
- vulnerable without support
- requires setup time before it can do its job
brood lords and siege tanks fill two of the above points. Collosus only fills 1 - they can be moved together in the death ball with only stalkers being significantly faster. anyways again just my opinion.
|
On December 03 2011 09:19 D_K_night wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 09:06 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 08:52 D_K_night wrote:On December 03 2011 08:40 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 08:32 VanGarde wrote:On December 03 2011 07:35 noxn wrote: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. I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement. There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win. By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones. Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from - AoE damage is just too high. That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz. I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)? Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily? Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards. Would an early baneling bust vs a Terran depot wall-in qualify for your above comments? How about a sudden roach build vs reactor-fac hellions? I can definitely say I've lost outright many a time against those as Terran, in many ways I blame myself for not having scouted better or scanned, but I see even pros lose to those, soooo....
Both are not very effective all ins and they are not the issue I'm talking about. The best example I can find is in PvT fast nexus into 6 gate aggression. Can beat even 4+ bunkers on most maps due to forcefields preventing repair, so terrans have to be prepared for it even if they don't scout, but if protoss goes for fast upgrades and zealots archons he will win easily later cause terran had to invest into defence rather than upgrades, tech and eco. So basically terran has to take a blind decision, either counter 6 gate or double forge, if they are wrong they lose if they get it right they will most likely win a bit later into mid game or be in a really good position. It's a bit simplified but it's pretty much what happens in the matchup right now. I guess it can be entertaining from a watcher perspective to see the unpredictability of a match, but still sucks for a player who invests a lot of time into getting better.
|
On December 03 2011 09:06 aTnClouD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 08:52 D_K_night wrote:On December 03 2011 08:40 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 08:32 VanGarde wrote:On December 03 2011 07:35 noxn wrote: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. I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement. There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win. By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones. Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from - AoE damage is just too high. That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz. I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)? Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily? Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards.
Smart casting definitely kills the amount of skill it takes to do such things and hopefully it doesn't get overexposed in the next update. Definitely going to be interesting to see how Blizzard tries to balance it out.
|
Cloud knows his stuff and isn't afraid to speak up.
|
"With a general consensus of negativity..."
Do you know what a general consensus is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
