|
On April 24 2013 03:41 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 03:17 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 02:12 Darksoldierr wrote:On April 24 2013 01:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 00:39 ishmoks wrote:Regarding rewarding high level players, check out Artosis blog post "The Raised Skill Ceiling: HotS vs BW" at http://scdojo.tumblr.com/What he wrote makes sense. Sadly he only looks at how the new game mechanics affect high level players ... who can manage the additional power of not having to "battle the (movement) AI and unit selection mechanics" really nicely, but for the average players it is a totally different story. They are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff and thus the biggest part of being good is the ability to split-second-multitask. Just watch TLO streaming and you will see him switching his view 3-4 times per second in constant action while a normal player might switch once every 5 seconds maybe. SC2 has the power, but for most people this amount of power is too much to handle and that is where BW was better, because the stuff you had to "fight" (unit selection limit, movement, low production) leveled the playing field between the players to such an extent that you games werent such easy walkovers as they are in SC2 on the lower end of the scale IF you manage to get one of several stupidly powerful and gimmicky units going. Banelings, warp-ins in the enemy base, Nydus worms are some of the examples, but now we have to add Oracles, Mutalisks, Speed-Medivacs and a few more to the list. I dont want to be rude, but a good Brood War player would have destroyed a causal Brood War player even more than in Sc2. In Sc2 thanks to the lot of all ins, the weaker player (unless the skill difference is that high) has a chance to win. Sc2 is lot more forgiving than BW was. Saying Sc2 is "harder" because you don't fight the AI or UI but units is like saying Football is hard, because the ball is rounded and can go anywhere. Ummm ... the difference between a "good" and a "casual" player is not the question. It is the difference between a casual and a slightly better casual and the ability to have "stupid wins" (the ones ending with ragequit) in SC2 due to the all-or-nothing kind of units AND the ability mass up a critical number with about any kind of unit while your opponent - who is rather sloppy with his mechanics just as you are - does not do so. In BW you didnt have the ability to get a critical number with any kind of unit because you had to "fight the game" with the movement and the unit selection limitations. THAT WAS GOOD ... for casuals but pros dont care for either way!!!! SC2 is obviously harder because you have LOTS MORE to do at the same time ... multitasking is a killer and so are gimmicky units which bypass strategic play. In BW you didnt have blink, burrowed movement, Nydus worms that can surface anywhere, warp-ins, ... all things which add requirements to SC2 which casuals do not have. Thus the game is harder for casuals than BW is. BW was simpler and less gimmicky and thus easier to play, even though it took more effort to play. Just dont think about "using units" but rather think about "playing against units" and then limit yourself to half your thoughts about them and you might see the problem of SC2. rofl
Well that settles it.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Now imagine just being able to keep those thngs uprooted...sounds inelegant. That's all.
But spores will have many nerfs off-creep and longer rooting time?
|
Hate to say it but it's really hard to play Zerg vs all races.
|
On April 24 2013 03:48 Existor wrote:
1. Queen damage against biological air units is increased to 27 (three times more than current anti-air damage). I want to remember - only against biological air units.
Ever had an overlord attacked by a queen? Imagine that but imagine now that if it gets hit just a few times it is dead.
|
On April 24 2013 04:26 FCReverie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 03:48 Existor wrote:
1. Queen damage against biological air units is increased to 27 (three times more than current anti-air damage). I want to remember - only against biological air units.
Ever had an overlord attacked by a queen? Imagine that but imagine now that if it gets hit just a few times it is dead.
Haha good point...
|
On April 24 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 03:41 IdrA wrote:On April 24 2013 03:17 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 02:12 Darksoldierr wrote:On April 24 2013 01:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 00:39 ishmoks wrote:Regarding rewarding high level players, check out Artosis blog post "The Raised Skill Ceiling: HotS vs BW" at http://scdojo.tumblr.com/What he wrote makes sense. Sadly he only looks at how the new game mechanics affect high level players ... who can manage the additional power of not having to "battle the (movement) AI and unit selection mechanics" really nicely, but for the average players it is a totally different story. They are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff and thus the biggest part of being good is the ability to split-second-multitask. Just watch TLO streaming and you will see him switching his view 3-4 times per second in constant action while a normal player might switch once every 5 seconds maybe. SC2 has the power, but for most people this amount of power is too much to handle and that is where BW was better, because the stuff you had to "fight" (unit selection limit, movement, low production) leveled the playing field between the players to such an extent that you games werent such easy walkovers as they are in SC2 on the lower end of the scale IF you manage to get one of several stupidly powerful and gimmicky units going. Banelings, warp-ins in the enemy base, Nydus worms are some of the examples, but now we have to add Oracles, Mutalisks, Speed-Medivacs and a few more to the list. I dont want to be rude, but a good Brood War player would have destroyed a causal Brood War player even more than in Sc2. In Sc2 thanks to the lot of all ins, the weaker player (unless the skill difference is that high) has a chance to win. Sc2 is lot more forgiving than BW was. Saying Sc2 is "harder" because you don't fight the AI or UI but units is like saying Football is hard, because the ball is rounded and can go anywhere. Ummm ... the difference between a "good" and a "casual" player is not the question. It is the difference between a casual and a slightly better casual and the ability to have "stupid wins" (the ones ending with ragequit) in SC2 due to the all-or-nothing kind of units AND the ability mass up a critical number with about any kind of unit while your opponent - who is rather sloppy with his mechanics just as you are - does not do so. In BW you didnt have the ability to get a critical number with any kind of unit because you had to "fight the game" with the movement and the unit selection limitations. THAT WAS GOOD ... for casuals but pros dont care for either way!!!! SC2 is obviously harder because you have LOTS MORE to do at the same time ... multitasking is a killer and so are gimmicky units which bypass strategic play. In BW you didnt have blink, burrowed movement, Nydus worms that can surface anywhere, warp-ins, ... all things which add requirements to SC2 which casuals do not have. Thus the game is harder for casuals than BW is. BW was simpler and less gimmicky and thus easier to play, even though it took more effort to play. Just dont think about "using units" but rather think about "playing against units" and then limit yourself to half your thoughts about them and you might see the problem of SC2. rofl Well that settles it.
Yeah it does, because BW was way harder than sc2 and anybody who doesn't think so never played BW at anything beyond the lowest level of play. Blink/marine splitting/nydus worms/warp-ins are all incredibly easy and anybody that tries to suggest that these are the reasons why it's harder to play is talking out of their ass.
|
how about making warp prisms faster instead of freaking oracles.
|
On April 24 2013 04:41 Utopi wrote:
how about making warp prisms faster instead of freaking oracles.
No?
|
On April 24 2013 04:41 Utopi wrote:
how about making warp prisms faster instead of freaking oracles.
Yeah, I would like that better. Oracle is already strong enough imo, they can rape a workers line in no time without any micro. Warp prisms requires good multitask.
|
On April 24 2013 04:40 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote:On April 24 2013 03:41 IdrA wrote:On April 24 2013 03:17 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 02:12 Darksoldierr wrote:On April 24 2013 01:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 00:39 ishmoks wrote:Regarding rewarding high level players, check out Artosis blog post "The Raised Skill Ceiling: HotS vs BW" at http://scdojo.tumblr.com/What he wrote makes sense. Sadly he only looks at how the new game mechanics affect high level players ... who can manage the additional power of not having to "battle the (movement) AI and unit selection mechanics" really nicely, but for the average players it is a totally different story. They are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff and thus the biggest part of being good is the ability to split-second-multitask. Just watch TLO streaming and you will see him switching his view 3-4 times per second in constant action while a normal player might switch once every 5 seconds maybe. SC2 has the power, but for most people this amount of power is too much to handle and that is where BW was better, because the stuff you had to "fight" (unit selection limit, movement, low production) leveled the playing field between the players to such an extent that you games werent such easy walkovers as they are in SC2 on the lower end of the scale IF you manage to get one of several stupidly powerful and gimmicky units going. Banelings, warp-ins in the enemy base, Nydus worms are some of the examples, but now we have to add Oracles, Mutalisks, Speed-Medivacs and a few more to the list. I dont want to be rude, but a good Brood War player would have destroyed a causal Brood War player even more than in Sc2. In Sc2 thanks to the lot of all ins, the weaker player (unless the skill difference is that high) has a chance to win. Sc2 is lot more forgiving than BW was. Saying Sc2 is "harder" because you don't fight the AI or UI but units is like saying Football is hard, because the ball is rounded and can go anywhere. Ummm ... the difference between a "good" and a "casual" player is not the question. It is the difference between a casual and a slightly better casual and the ability to have "stupid wins" (the ones ending with ragequit) in SC2 due to the all-or-nothing kind of units AND the ability mass up a critical number with about any kind of unit while your opponent - who is rather sloppy with his mechanics just as you are - does not do so. In BW you didnt have the ability to get a critical number with any kind of unit because you had to "fight the game" with the movement and the unit selection limitations. THAT WAS GOOD ... for casuals but pros dont care for either way!!!! SC2 is obviously harder because you have LOTS MORE to do at the same time ... multitasking is a killer and so are gimmicky units which bypass strategic play. In BW you didnt have blink, burrowed movement, Nydus worms that can surface anywhere, warp-ins, ... all things which add requirements to SC2 which casuals do not have. Thus the game is harder for casuals than BW is. BW was simpler and less gimmicky and thus easier to play, even though it took more effort to play. Just dont think about "using units" but rather think about "playing against units" and then limit yourself to half your thoughts about them and you might see the problem of SC2. rofl Well that settles it. Yeah it does, because BW was way harder than sc2 and anybody who doesn't think so never played BW at anything beyond the lowest level of play. Blink/marine splitting/nydus worms/warp-ins are all incredibly easy and anybody that tries to suggest that these are the reasons why it's harder to play is talking out of their ass.
Yh but it is waaaaay harder to dominate in sc2.
|
On April 24 2013 04:44 sM.Zik wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:41 Utopi wrote:
how about making warp prisms faster instead of freaking oracles. Yeah, I would like that better. Oracle is already strong enough imo, they can rape a workers line in no time without any micro. Warp prisms requires good multitask.
So without multitask I can use an Oracle or Oracles and not sacrifice macro?
And I dont need micro to keep oracles alive or to kill things?
|
On April 24 2013 03:48 Existor wrote:
Is it not better to discuss what the solution can be to Mutalisks in ZvZ matchup? Rather than trying useless buff to Spores.
Corruptor as real anti-Mutalisk counter. Buff it against Mutalisks!
• Make Corruption ability slow down by 50% all aircraft units. It will also balance Corruptors against Phoenixes. Right now Corruptors can't counter Phoenixes as they supposed to do.
I actually really like this. Right now corruption is a throwaway ability. . Not necessarily 50%, but making corruption a single-target slow vs. air units would be cool for a lot of reasons. Mostly slowing air units.
|
On April 24 2013 04:46 PanzerElite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:40 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote:On April 24 2013 03:41 IdrA wrote:On April 24 2013 03:17 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 02:12 Darksoldierr wrote:On April 24 2013 01:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 00:39 ishmoks wrote:Regarding rewarding high level players, check out Artosis blog post "The Raised Skill Ceiling: HotS vs BW" at http://scdojo.tumblr.com/What he wrote makes sense. Sadly he only looks at how the new game mechanics affect high level players ... who can manage the additional power of not having to "battle the (movement) AI and unit selection mechanics" really nicely, but for the average players it is a totally different story. They are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff and thus the biggest part of being good is the ability to split-second-multitask. Just watch TLO streaming and you will see him switching his view 3-4 times per second in constant action while a normal player might switch once every 5 seconds maybe. SC2 has the power, but for most people this amount of power is too much to handle and that is where BW was better, because the stuff you had to "fight" (unit selection limit, movement, low production) leveled the playing field between the players to such an extent that you games werent such easy walkovers as they are in SC2 on the lower end of the scale IF you manage to get one of several stupidly powerful and gimmicky units going. Banelings, warp-ins in the enemy base, Nydus worms are some of the examples, but now we have to add Oracles, Mutalisks, Speed-Medivacs and a few more to the list. I dont want to be rude, but a good Brood War player would have destroyed a causal Brood War player even more than in Sc2. In Sc2 thanks to the lot of all ins, the weaker player (unless the skill difference is that high) has a chance to win. Sc2 is lot more forgiving than BW was. Saying Sc2 is "harder" because you don't fight the AI or UI but units is like saying Football is hard, because the ball is rounded and can go anywhere. Ummm ... the difference between a "good" and a "casual" player is not the question. It is the difference between a casual and a slightly better casual and the ability to have "stupid wins" (the ones ending with ragequit) in SC2 due to the all-or-nothing kind of units AND the ability mass up a critical number with about any kind of unit while your opponent - who is rather sloppy with his mechanics just as you are - does not do so. In BW you didnt have the ability to get a critical number with any kind of unit because you had to "fight the game" with the movement and the unit selection limitations. THAT WAS GOOD ... for casuals but pros dont care for either way!!!! SC2 is obviously harder because you have LOTS MORE to do at the same time ... multitasking is a killer and so are gimmicky units which bypass strategic play. In BW you didnt have blink, burrowed movement, Nydus worms that can surface anywhere, warp-ins, ... all things which add requirements to SC2 which casuals do not have. Thus the game is harder for casuals than BW is. BW was simpler and less gimmicky and thus easier to play, even though it took more effort to play. Just dont think about "using units" but rather think about "playing against units" and then limit yourself to half your thoughts about them and you might see the problem of SC2. rofl Well that settles it. Yeah it does, because BW was way harder than sc2 and anybody who doesn't think so never played BW at anything beyond the lowest level of play. Blink/marine splitting/nydus worms/warp-ins are all incredibly easy and anybody that tries to suggest that these are the reasons why it's harder to play is talking out of their ass. Yh but it is waaaaay harder to dominate in sc2.
No, it's really not.
On April 24 2013 04:49 -Kaiser- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 03:48 Existor wrote:
Is it not better to discuss what the solution can be to Mutalisks in ZvZ matchup? Rather than trying useless buff to Spores.
Corruptor as real anti-Mutalisk counter. Buff it against Mutalisks!
• Make Corruption ability slow down by 50% all aircraft units. It will also balance Corruptors against Phoenixes. Right now Corruptors can't counter Phoenixes as they supposed to do.
I actually really like this. Right now corruption is a throwaway ability. . Not necessarily 50%, but making corruption a single-target slow vs. air units would be cool for a lot of reasons. Mostly slowing air units.
I think all a corruptor buff would accomplish is to have zerg players add in some corruptors to their army. They still don't synergize well with any ground army so it'll just be the same game except some corruptors as well. They really need to answer the mutalisk problem with ground AA that can move (which means queens or more likely hydralisks).
|
On April 24 2013 04:51 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:46 PanzerElite wrote:On April 24 2013 04:40 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote:On April 24 2013 03:41 IdrA wrote:On April 24 2013 03:17 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 02:12 Darksoldierr wrote:On April 24 2013 01:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 00:39 ishmoks wrote:Regarding rewarding high level players, check out Artosis blog post "The Raised Skill Ceiling: HotS vs BW" at http://scdojo.tumblr.com/What he wrote makes sense. Sadly he only looks at how the new game mechanics affect high level players ... who can manage the additional power of not having to "battle the (movement) AI and unit selection mechanics" really nicely, but for the average players it is a totally different story. They are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff and thus the biggest part of being good is the ability to split-second-multitask. Just watch TLO streaming and you will see him switching his view 3-4 times per second in constant action while a normal player might switch once every 5 seconds maybe. SC2 has the power, but for most people this amount of power is too much to handle and that is where BW was better, because the stuff you had to "fight" (unit selection limit, movement, low production) leveled the playing field between the players to such an extent that you games werent such easy walkovers as they are in SC2 on the lower end of the scale IF you manage to get one of several stupidly powerful and gimmicky units going. Banelings, warp-ins in the enemy base, Nydus worms are some of the examples, but now we have to add Oracles, Mutalisks, Speed-Medivacs and a few more to the list. I dont want to be rude, but a good Brood War player would have destroyed a causal Brood War player even more than in Sc2. In Sc2 thanks to the lot of all ins, the weaker player (unless the skill difference is that high) has a chance to win. Sc2 is lot more forgiving than BW was. Saying Sc2 is "harder" because you don't fight the AI or UI but units is like saying Football is hard, because the ball is rounded and can go anywhere. Ummm ... the difference between a "good" and a "casual" player is not the question. It is the difference between a casual and a slightly better casual and the ability to have "stupid wins" (the ones ending with ragequit) in SC2 due to the all-or-nothing kind of units AND the ability mass up a critical number with about any kind of unit while your opponent - who is rather sloppy with his mechanics just as you are - does not do so. In BW you didnt have the ability to get a critical number with any kind of unit because you had to "fight the game" with the movement and the unit selection limitations. THAT WAS GOOD ... for casuals but pros dont care for either way!!!! SC2 is obviously harder because you have LOTS MORE to do at the same time ... multitasking is a killer and so are gimmicky units which bypass strategic play. In BW you didnt have blink, burrowed movement, Nydus worms that can surface anywhere, warp-ins, ... all things which add requirements to SC2 which casuals do not have. Thus the game is harder for casuals than BW is. BW was simpler and less gimmicky and thus easier to play, even though it took more effort to play. Just dont think about "using units" but rather think about "playing against units" and then limit yourself to half your thoughts about them and you might see the problem of SC2. rofl Well that settles it. Yeah it does, because BW was way harder than sc2 and anybody who doesn't think so never played BW at anything beyond the lowest level of play. Blink/marine splitting/nydus worms/warp-ins are all incredibly easy and anybody that tries to suggest that these are the reasons why it's harder to play is talking out of their ass. Yh but it is waaaaay harder to dominate in sc2. No, it's really not.
While Mvp was the King of Wol, he wasn't as dominant as his bw counterparts. Yh bw was harder mechanically, but it's harder to be consistent in sc2. Prove me wrong... O, wait you can't. haha
|
On April 24 2013 04:57 PanzerElite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:51 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:46 PanzerElite wrote:On April 24 2013 04:40 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote:On April 24 2013 03:41 IdrA wrote:On April 24 2013 03:17 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 02:12 Darksoldierr wrote:On April 24 2013 01:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 00:39 ishmoks wrote:Regarding rewarding high level players, check out Artosis blog post "The Raised Skill Ceiling: HotS vs BW" at http://scdojo.tumblr.com/What he wrote makes sense. Sadly he only looks at how the new game mechanics affect high level players ... who can manage the additional power of not having to "battle the (movement) AI and unit selection mechanics" really nicely, but for the average players it is a totally different story. They are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff and thus the biggest part of being good is the ability to split-second-multitask. Just watch TLO streaming and you will see him switching his view 3-4 times per second in constant action while a normal player might switch once every 5 seconds maybe. SC2 has the power, but for most people this amount of power is too much to handle and that is where BW was better, because the stuff you had to "fight" (unit selection limit, movement, low production) leveled the playing field between the players to such an extent that you games werent such easy walkovers as they are in SC2 on the lower end of the scale IF you manage to get one of several stupidly powerful and gimmicky units going. Banelings, warp-ins in the enemy base, Nydus worms are some of the examples, but now we have to add Oracles, Mutalisks, Speed-Medivacs and a few more to the list. I dont want to be rude, but a good Brood War player would have destroyed a causal Brood War player even more than in Sc2. In Sc2 thanks to the lot of all ins, the weaker player (unless the skill difference is that high) has a chance to win. Sc2 is lot more forgiving than BW was. Saying Sc2 is "harder" because you don't fight the AI or UI but units is like saying Football is hard, because the ball is rounded and can go anywhere. Ummm ... the difference between a "good" and a "casual" player is not the question. It is the difference between a casual and a slightly better casual and the ability to have "stupid wins" (the ones ending with ragequit) in SC2 due to the all-or-nothing kind of units AND the ability mass up a critical number with about any kind of unit while your opponent - who is rather sloppy with his mechanics just as you are - does not do so. In BW you didnt have the ability to get a critical number with any kind of unit because you had to "fight the game" with the movement and the unit selection limitations. THAT WAS GOOD ... for casuals but pros dont care for either way!!!! SC2 is obviously harder because you have LOTS MORE to do at the same time ... multitasking is a killer and so are gimmicky units which bypass strategic play. In BW you didnt have blink, burrowed movement, Nydus worms that can surface anywhere, warp-ins, ... all things which add requirements to SC2 which casuals do not have. Thus the game is harder for casuals than BW is. BW was simpler and less gimmicky and thus easier to play, even though it took more effort to play. Just dont think about "using units" but rather think about "playing against units" and then limit yourself to half your thoughts about them and you might see the problem of SC2. rofl Well that settles it. Yeah it does, because BW was way harder than sc2 and anybody who doesn't think so never played BW at anything beyond the lowest level of play. Blink/marine splitting/nydus worms/warp-ins are all incredibly easy and anybody that tries to suggest that these are the reasons why it's harder to play is talking out of their ass. Yh but it is waaaaay harder to dominate in sc2. No, it's really not. While Mvp was the King of Wol, he wasn't as dominant as his bw counterparts. Yh bw was harder mechanically, but it's harder to be consistent in sc2. Prove me wrong... O, wait you can't. haha
That probably has something to do with the fact that SC2 is still in the baby stage of being an esport. The game itself is volatile only because it hasn't been out for that long. Give it 4-5 years after blizzard stops making changes and you'll see players dominating. Alternatively just keep watching flash who is already basically a code S tier player even though he's been playing the game for half as long as anybody else.
|
Maybe change the acceleration of oracles instead?
|
On April 23 2013 09:46 LurkersGonnaLurk wrote:Elaborate?
making oracles faster in tvp destroys any chance of marines staying alive and pretty much forces everyone to get other stuff to deal with oracles such as vikings or mines.
|
On April 24 2013 05:02 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:57 PanzerElite wrote:On April 24 2013 04:51 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:46 PanzerElite wrote:On April 24 2013 04:40 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote:On April 24 2013 03:41 IdrA wrote:On April 24 2013 03:17 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 02:12 Darksoldierr wrote:On April 24 2013 01:24 Rabiator wrote:
[quote]
Sadly he only looks at how the new game mechanics affect high level players ... who can manage the additional power of not having to "battle the (movement) AI and unit selection mechanics" really nicely, but for the average players it is a totally different story. They are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff and thus the biggest part of being good is the ability to split-second-multitask. Just watch TLO streaming and you will see him switching his view 3-4 times per second in constant action while a normal player might switch once every 5 seconds maybe.
SC2 has the power, but for most people this amount of power is too much to handle and that is where BW was better, because the stuff you had to "fight" (unit selection limit, movement, low production) leveled the playing field between the players to such an extent that you games werent such easy walkovers as they are in SC2 on the lower end of the scale IF you manage to get one of several stupidly powerful and gimmicky units going. Banelings, warp-ins in the enemy base, Nydus worms are some of the examples, but now we have to add Oracles, Mutalisks, Speed-Medivacs and a few more to the list. I dont want to be rude, but a good Brood War player would have destroyed a causal Brood War player even more than in Sc2. In Sc2 thanks to the lot of all ins, the weaker player (unless the skill difference is that high) has a chance to win. Sc2 is lot more forgiving than BW was. Saying Sc2 is "harder" because you don't fight the AI or UI but units is like saying Football is hard, because the ball is rounded and can go anywhere. Ummm ... the difference between a "good" and a "casual" player is not the question. It is the difference between a casual and a slightly better casual and the ability to have "stupid wins" (the ones ending with ragequit) in SC2 due to the all-or-nothing kind of units AND the ability mass up a critical number with about any kind of unit while your opponent - who is rather sloppy with his mechanics just as you are - does not do so. In BW you didnt have the ability to get a critical number with any kind of unit because you had to "fight the game" with the movement and the unit selection limitations. THAT WAS GOOD ... for casuals but pros dont care for either way!!!! SC2 is obviously harder because you have LOTS MORE to do at the same time ... multitasking is a killer and so are gimmicky units which bypass strategic play. In BW you didnt have blink, burrowed movement, Nydus worms that can surface anywhere, warp-ins, ... all things which add requirements to SC2 which casuals do not have. Thus the game is harder for casuals than BW is. BW was simpler and less gimmicky and thus easier to play, even though it took more effort to play. Just dont think about "using units" but rather think about "playing against units" and then limit yourself to half your thoughts about them and you might see the problem of SC2. rofl Well that settles it. Yeah it does, because BW was way harder than sc2 and anybody who doesn't think so never played BW at anything beyond the lowest level of play. Blink/marine splitting/nydus worms/warp-ins are all incredibly easy and anybody that tries to suggest that these are the reasons why it's harder to play is talking out of their ass. Yh but it is waaaaay harder to dominate in sc2. No, it's really not. While Mvp was the King of Wol, he wasn't as dominant as his bw counterparts. Yh bw was harder mechanically, but it's harder to be consistent in sc2. Prove me wrong... O, wait you can't. haha That probably has something to do with the fact that SC2 is still in the baby stage of being an esport. The game itself is volatile only because it hasn't been out for that long. Give it 4-5 years after blizzard stops making changes and you'll see players dominating. Alternatively just keep watching flash who is already basically a code S tier player even though he's been playing the game for half as long as anybody else. Code S tier doesn't mean domination, Flash is doing very bad in SPL. Because it's easier it's harder for mechanically better players to stand out. Or your name is Mvp and you just pull out wins with knowledge instead of ultra fancy mechanics. And after 4 or 5 years mechanically superior players still won't be able to just dominate over others because mechanics will only carry you so far. Mkp? Yes Mvp is still awesome while his wrist exploded, but Mkp's control > Mvp's (handicapped Mvp). Sc2 also needs you to be smart you can't do the same thing over and over in this game.
|
On April 24 2013 04:57 PanzerElite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 04:51 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:46 PanzerElite wrote:On April 24 2013 04:40 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote:On April 24 2013 03:41 IdrA wrote:On April 24 2013 03:17 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 02:12 Darksoldierr wrote:On April 24 2013 01:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 00:39 ishmoks wrote:Regarding rewarding high level players, check out Artosis blog post "The Raised Skill Ceiling: HotS vs BW" at http://scdojo.tumblr.com/What he wrote makes sense. Sadly he only looks at how the new game mechanics affect high level players ... who can manage the additional power of not having to "battle the (movement) AI and unit selection mechanics" really nicely, but for the average players it is a totally different story. They are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff and thus the biggest part of being good is the ability to split-second-multitask. Just watch TLO streaming and you will see him switching his view 3-4 times per second in constant action while a normal player might switch once every 5 seconds maybe. SC2 has the power, but for most people this amount of power is too much to handle and that is where BW was better, because the stuff you had to "fight" (unit selection limit, movement, low production) leveled the playing field between the players to such an extent that you games werent such easy walkovers as they are in SC2 on the lower end of the scale IF you manage to get one of several stupidly powerful and gimmicky units going. Banelings, warp-ins in the enemy base, Nydus worms are some of the examples, but now we have to add Oracles, Mutalisks, Speed-Medivacs and a few more to the list. I dont want to be rude, but a good Brood War player would have destroyed a causal Brood War player even more than in Sc2. In Sc2 thanks to the lot of all ins, the weaker player (unless the skill difference is that high) has a chance to win. Sc2 is lot more forgiving than BW was. Saying Sc2 is "harder" because you don't fight the AI or UI but units is like saying Football is hard, because the ball is rounded and can go anywhere. Ummm ... the difference between a "good" and a "casual" player is not the question. It is the difference between a casual and a slightly better casual and the ability to have "stupid wins" (the ones ending with ragequit) in SC2 due to the all-or-nothing kind of units AND the ability mass up a critical number with about any kind of unit while your opponent - who is rather sloppy with his mechanics just as you are - does not do so. In BW you didnt have the ability to get a critical number with any kind of unit because you had to "fight the game" with the movement and the unit selection limitations. THAT WAS GOOD ... for casuals but pros dont care for either way!!!! SC2 is obviously harder because you have LOTS MORE to do at the same time ... multitasking is a killer and so are gimmicky units which bypass strategic play. In BW you didnt have blink, burrowed movement, Nydus worms that can surface anywhere, warp-ins, ... all things which add requirements to SC2 which casuals do not have. Thus the game is harder for casuals than BW is. BW was simpler and less gimmicky and thus easier to play, even though it took more effort to play. Just dont think about "using units" but rather think about "playing against units" and then limit yourself to half your thoughts about them and you might see the problem of SC2. rofl Well that settles it. Yeah it does, because BW was way harder than sc2 and anybody who doesn't think so never played BW at anything beyond the lowest level of play. Blink/marine splitting/nydus worms/warp-ins are all incredibly easy and anybody that tries to suggest that these are the reasons why it's harder to play is talking out of their ass. Yh but it is waaaaay harder to dominate in sc2. No, it's really not. While Mvp was the King of Wol, he wasn't as dominant as his bw counterparts. Yh bw was harder mechanically, but it's harder to be consistent in sc2. Prove me wrong... O, wait you can't. haha
For something to be consistent you need a consistent game which we don't have with new maps, patches and expansions coming out. Wait a few years after legacy of the void have come out and then get back to me. And in any case, it's not even that hard to be consistent in sc2. Harder than bw, sure but don't act like it's dice rolling here. It's the same pros over and over again, most having been in the scene since the first beta.
|
On April 24 2013 05:12 PanzerElite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 05:02 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:57 PanzerElite wrote:On April 24 2013 04:51 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:46 PanzerElite wrote:On April 24 2013 04:40 omnic wrote:On April 24 2013 04:15 eviltomahawk wrote:On April 24 2013 03:41 IdrA wrote:On April 24 2013 03:17 Rabiator wrote:On April 24 2013 02:12 Darksoldierr wrote:
[quote]
I dont want to be rude, but a good Brood War player would have destroyed a causal Brood War player even more than in Sc2. In Sc2 thanks to the lot of all ins, the weaker player (unless the skill difference is that high) has a chance to win.
Sc2 is lot more forgiving than BW was. Saying Sc2 is "harder" because you don't fight the AI or UI but units is like saying Football is hard, because the ball is rounded and can go anywhere. Ummm ... the difference between a "good" and a "casual" player is not the question. It is the difference between a casual and a slightly better casual and the ability to have "stupid wins" (the ones ending with ragequit) in SC2 due to the all-or-nothing kind of units AND the ability mass up a critical number with about any kind of unit while your opponent - who is rather sloppy with his mechanics just as you are - does not do so. In BW you didnt have the ability to get a critical number with any kind of unit because you had to "fight the game" with the movement and the unit selection limitations. THAT WAS GOOD ... for casuals but pros dont care for either way!!!! SC2 is obviously harder because you have LOTS MORE to do at the same time ... multitasking is a killer and so are gimmicky units which bypass strategic play. In BW you didnt have blink, burrowed movement, Nydus worms that can surface anywhere, warp-ins, ... all things which add requirements to SC2 which casuals do not have. Thus the game is harder for casuals than BW is. BW was simpler and less gimmicky and thus easier to play, even though it took more effort to play. Just dont think about "using units" but rather think about "playing against units" and then limit yourself to half your thoughts about them and you might see the problem of SC2. rofl Well that settles it. Yeah it does, because BW was way harder than sc2 and anybody who doesn't think so never played BW at anything beyond the lowest level of play. Blink/marine splitting/nydus worms/warp-ins are all incredibly easy and anybody that tries to suggest that these are the reasons why it's harder to play is talking out of their ass. Yh but it is waaaaay harder to dominate in sc2. No, it's really not. While Mvp was the King of Wol, he wasn't as dominant as his bw counterparts. Yh bw was harder mechanically, but it's harder to be consistent in sc2. Prove me wrong... O, wait you can't. haha That probably has something to do with the fact that SC2 is still in the baby stage of being an esport. The game itself is volatile only because it hasn't been out for that long. Give it 4-5 years after blizzard stops making changes and you'll see players dominating. Alternatively just keep watching flash who is already basically a code S tier player even though he's been playing the game for half as long as anybody else. Code S tier doesn't mean domination, Flash is doing very bad in SPL. Because it's easier it's harder for mechanically better players to stand out. Or your name is Mvp and you just pull out wins with knowledge instead of ultra fancy mechanics. And after 4 or 5 years mechanically superior players still won't be able to just dominate over others because mechanics will only carry you so far. Mkp? Yes Mvp is still awesome while his wrist exploded, but Mkp's control > Mvp's (handicapped Mvp). Sc2 also needs you to be smart you can't do the same thing over and over in this game.
Being code S tier when you have had half the time to play the game as anybody else does though because it suggests that flash is getting better faster than anybody else in the scene and if you think mechanics are "flashy" and are not the main reason why a player wins games than we have nothing else to talk about. The only reason why you "can't do the same thing" is because if somebody does find something that's extremely solid play(like late game infestor/brood/corruptor) blizzard nerfs it. Don't act like what blizzard changes isn't the biggest factor on why you can't play the same way for too long when it's strong as hell. Posts like yours is why so many pros stopped posting on forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
