|
On February 03 2012 06:28 Jayjay54 wrote:
really surprising that this turned into another one of the classic bw vs sc2 threads. not.
why do people always have to bitch around. If you don't like it, go watch BW. what's the big deal.
idra's recent comments about PvZ showed once more that he has quite a unique view on SC2, maybe that's why he hates it. He's the anti day 9.
there are quite a lot of pros that think sc2 is a terrible game. and it is. there are so many things wrong with the game as a whole. just shitload of design errors and the biggest one is protoss. people play it because of the competition and money (yes, the money).
|
On February 03 2012 08:48 teddyoojo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 06:28 Jayjay54 wrote:
really surprising that this turned into another one of the classic bw vs sc2 threads. not.
why do people always have to bitch around. If you don't like it, go watch BW. what's the big deal.
idra's recent comments about PvZ showed once more that he has quite a unique view on SC2, maybe that's why he hates it. He's the anti day 9. there are quite a lot of pros that think sc2 is a terrible game. and it is. there are so many things wrong with the game as a whole. just shitload of design errors and the biggest one is protoss. people play it because of the competition and money (yes, the money).
where does the money come from? a lot of viewers who apparently have a lot of interest in watching a terrible game.
so as long as enough viewers have fun watching it, it's fine. I'd agree that it has room left to grow, but it's been around not even two years, we got 2 expansions left and things are more and more figured out.
I don't see any problem right now. If you can't stand watching it, don't watch it. It's that simple.
|
It is more volatile then it's counter-part BW because the game is easier now and more luck involved, something along those lines.
|
On February 03 2012 08:52 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 08:48 teddyoojo wrote:On February 03 2012 06:28 Jayjay54 wrote:
really surprising that this turned into another one of the classic bw vs sc2 threads. not.
why do people always have to bitch around. If you don't like it, go watch BW. what's the big deal.
idra's recent comments about PvZ showed once more that he has quite a unique view on SC2, maybe that's why he hates it. He's the anti day 9. there are quite a lot of pros that think sc2 is a terrible game. and it is. there are so many things wrong with the game as a whole. just shitload of design errors and the biggest one is protoss. people play it because of the competition and money (yes, the money). where does the money come from? a lot of viewers who apparently have a lot of interest in watching a terrible game. so as long as enough viewers have fun watching it, it's fine. I'd agree that it has room left to grow, but it's been around not even two years, we got 2 expansions left and things are more and more figured out. I don't see any problem right now. If you can't stand watching it, don't watch it. It's that simple.
yet i never said its terrible to watch. its terrible to play.
and i dont really think any pro will answer in this thread because its quite a sensible topic. except idra ofc because he doesnt give a f#ck
|
they are not predictable ? thats news to me.
Anyway one reason why they are not as predictable as you might want is, that players train new strategies with their team members. They hit people by surprise and people that are generally better fall to it. Then you meet your team member knowing you really well and abuse the weaknesses in the build.
You see alot of extra mind games early when people from the same team play, just to throw them off. And just from seeing it, sure you know the basics of the build, but only one version there are probably more depending on maps.
I guess if there were hidden strategies in tennis the results would vary more as well. You can overcome those by a good decision making and superior mechanics. But sc2 is also a game about micro and if your opponent has trained the needed micro moves to perfection, while you just have your basics, then your behind (especially while you have to think about a solution to your opponent)
Atleast i have a huge success on ladder because i play with my own non common builds and know how to handle the standard builds. Putting me at levels where my mechanics wouldn't stand a chance against my opponents. I mean if you see a master player reacting to immortal+phoenix with bio + medivacs or bunkers (okay its just eu but still) by scouting it even, then you realize how unexplored the game is still (and probably ever will be since HotS will be a different game) and that just a simple unknown build can mess up players that are basically stronger then you.
And if you take the secrecy factor into account sc2 becomes way more predictable.
Goody is a good example against zerg. A zerg that doesn't know him has high chances to just lose first game against him, even if the player is considered way stronger. (especially korean zergs as they expect a totally different opening after scouting). If you don't know goody it will be a suprise for you. If you know him and know that the opponent doesn't know him it turns out just as expected.
So if you would know what those slayers terrans are coming up next with, you could predict the outcome of games way easier.
Even in bw there sometimes comes stuff up that just hits people by surprise. Crazy zerg for example, where you deny scouting while rushing for ultras and guardians. While the opponent prepares as usual and is suddenly so far behind in tech that he just gets rolled, despite the eco and unit mass. And there were also upsets where know koreans lost to nonames simply because the nonames played not predictable. (didn't followed this really but was fun to watch)
On February 03 2012 08:53 Kamais Ookin wrote:
It is more volatile then it's counter-part BW because the game is easier now and more luck involved, something along those lines.
reaver is the most luck based unit i have ever seen, i saw some scarabs that never flunked or got stuck, and exploded within the normal range, but did no damage. My fav is the single siege tank beating 6 dragons just from the high ground advantage, dragons where damaged though.
I think the luck factor made it fun to watch, but horrible to play, just like random drops in warcraft3 or the you cannot attack me in this position hills. So the almost total missing luck factor in sc2, should make it less frustrating when playing, but less interesting to watch. And also more predictable, since there is no risk involved in attacking a cliff with 3 stalkers against 2 stalkers if you have vision, so its more easy to spot if you are ahead and take the win. Which makes it important to analyze a situation swiftly and to have an ace under your sleeve.
|
On February 03 2012 02:41 Klonere wrote:
Obviously SC2 is an awful game which we should all stop playing and because of this all accomplishments in the game mean nothing in the face of the glorious and true RTS of gods, played by gods, for a god-like fanbase, BW.
I am angry, yes.
This is going to my siggy  .
|
This thread is more volatile and unstable than sc2 balance. What is going on in hurr
|
LOL at people saying pros play a shitty game for the money. Do you guys realize how little money progamers actually make, especially considering how much they play? If they put half as much of that time and energy into learning how to play poker they could be millionaires, not making sub 100k a year like the vast majority of pro gamers. Why do you guys think players like Elky and Raz and countless other SC players switch to poker?
Hell, you don't even need to play poker. Go to school for 4 years, it takes a lot less effort and you can make a lot more money with less dedication.
If a pro-gamer is in it for the money he is doing it wrong.
edit: Most korean sc1 and sc2 pros probably make sub-50k a year. Many don't have salary and when they do it's not outstanding. They play because they are passionate about the game and anyone who thinks gaming is a fun get rich quick scheme is retarded. That same dedication and intelligence applied to traditional careers would usually result in more money, not less.
|
Tennis doesn't have fog of war.
|
On February 03 2012 14:19 WhoIsMyTeamate wrote:
Tennis doesn't have fog of war.
This one made me spit my coffee out. I actually imagined playing tennis able to only see your side of the field.
|
How is it unpredictable? The same players consistently do well. There will be upsets in almost every type of competition (BW included).
|
On February 02 2012 21:18 ianyapxw wrote:
Contrast this with a sport like tennis (since I think this is something people on both sides of the Atlantic would be familiar with). In the past 4 major tournaments (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open), there have only been 5 different players who took the top 4 spots on all tournaments.
That's men's singles. The women's game is very unpredictable atm.
|
IdrA's probably saying to himself, "still got it."
|
On February 03 2012 14:19 WhoIsMyTeamate wrote:
Tennis doesn't have fog of war.
Agreed. The more information the player lacks, the higher the degree of volatility. Fog of war definitely hides a lot of information. You would definitely see a much smaller set of players at the top over time if this element was removed. That said, as the game develops, the ability of fog of war to hide information slowly diminishes because players will understand the game at an increasingly deeper level. They will infer things they haven't seen, simulating the lack of fog of war to a certain degree.
|
I'm not convinced that SC2 is all that volatile, honestly.
When was the last surprise result? Stephano? He's proven himself to be more than just a lucky player since then, anyway.
Also, you still have big names out there winning stuff and proving their consistency every day. MVP, MMA, NesTea, MC, DRG, Kas, Dimaga, etc. It's honestly not very often where some truly unknown player takes a championship or even makes a deep run.
Keep in mind as well that there is a huge amount of SC2 tournament activity when compared to something like BW. Now I unfortunately did not follow BW, but from what I've heard/read about it there were far fewer championships each year. Fewer tournaments means fewer chances to shake things up.
Really, with the amount of tournaments going on in SC2 every day/week/month, it's actually quite astonishing how consistent many of our favorite players are!
|
hit 'quote' on my last post instead of 'edit' -_-
|
On February 03 2012 00:43 Megaliskuu wrote:Thank you. User was temp banned for this post.
how come this guy gets a temp ban and idra doesn't get anything? i'm not saying idra deserves a warning/ban, i'm just wondering how come this guy got one if idra didn't.... seems odd to me... a bit of favoritism going on perhaps?
|
Your question is basically "why isn't a brand new game solved already?" and the answer is because it's new.
|
If you're too overconfident you lose sights of your goal and will lose.
If you think you're going to lose then you've already been defeated.
Thats what happens to most players when they start too win many games or when they have too large of an ego or think one matchup is bad. Lack of practice or no desire to practice. I think the maturity of the game actually doesn't play that big of a role.
Players constantly say that they stop practicing or they think it'll be too easy or that it's impossible to win set matchup and the opposing players will play better due to better preperation and motivation.
You should remember this Idra because you'll never actually reach your full potential as a player until then.
|
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote:
cuz its a shit game
This is to people who share this opinion. I can understand being frustrated with the game and blaming its volatility on poor design, which may or may not be the case. I'm not actually arguing whether the game is balanced or a good test of "skill" in a player versus player environment. But I don't understand players who continue playing SC2 if they hold the opinion that the game is shit.
I can understand pursuing a professional career if the pro believes that the game will become more stable as the knowledge of the game develops in time, and therefore spending time now will benefit long-term. I could also understand if the potential financial gain is enough that playing a "shit" game would be worth it. And the hidden expected value of playing SC2 professionally besides money (living in Korea, connecting with very smart people, traveling the world, the pride and knowledge that they're the best in their respective field, etc.) might make playing the game worth it for Idra or other pros in his situation, even if the game is shit, and I obv can't speak for them.
But if the above isn't true, wouldn't it make more sense for these professionals to pursue a more balanced lifestyle instead of playing a game that is not only "shit" and frustrating to play but also probably -EV long-term in the sense of economic and emotional balance. They could use their intelligence (and I believe that the majority of these players are probably all highly intelligent people) to find careers that are much more financially lucrative. There are plenty of jobs with earning potential way way higher than SC2 can provide.
Besides providing the previously stated hidden EV of playing SC2, isn't the actual value relatively low playing professionally? There are plenty of jobs that have much higher earning potential, and in fields that may be just as worthwhile from a value stance.
So these intelligent pros could pursue high value careers, and then have time and the financial flexibility to pursue other things that make them happy.
http://www.philgalfond.com/it-always-comes-back-to-balance-doesnt-it/ This isn't SC2, but I find it paralleling some of the issues that a lot of these pros face. It is written by Phil Galfond, a highly successful professional poker player, who has learned that for him to deal with the volatility and unpredictable nature of his game (which DEFINITELY has a ton more variance that SC2), he has had to find balance in his own lifestyle outside of poker.
Of course there is a non-0 probability that his post is complete troll and I wrote a ton of shit for no reason, but I hope this might spark some discussion at least.
TL;DR Find balance if you think that SC2 is not +Life EV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
