EPTSC2's shrinking talent pool: stuchiu on ESPN - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MooMooMugi
United States10531 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
 . Well it is true anyone with common sense can see that it has been occurring for a long time. What I'm a bit more worried about is whether there will be any new RTS to replace it? I think the genre is still pretty interesting, but I hope there is a more user-friendly version that doesn't require such extreme requirements for high APM (at least for most of us).If there was a more strategic, tactical form of RTS that was not so fast paced, but not to the point of being turn based like a normal strategy game, I think that might be fun. It would be pretty hard to design though | ||
|
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On January 24 2016 01:51 ErectedZenith wrote: We need to define what "strategy" is. SC2 definitely have some form of planning and decision making involved. EVERY game has planning and decisionmaking in some way. Even people speed-running Super Mario Bros. have a strategy. My argument is about the quality, quantity, and types of choices available. Strategy games are set apart by the fact that you command many units, and usually also build bases and units too. So you would expect that a lot of the interesting choices involve which units and buildings to make. The other half would be when to make them and where to put them. I'm saying that SC2 is lacking the first half, choosing among units and buildings. Each matchup has an "optimal" unit comp / deathball which cannot be strongly countered by another unit comp. If you don't build this comp at best you're playing at a disadvantage and at worst you're giving yourself a free loss. There's a lot of broken tech paths, units, and false choices in this game, it could even be the majority by this point. For example protoss has 3 very distinct late-game tech paths: stargate, robotics, twilight. Did you choose twilight tech? Your prize is a widow mine in your mineral line, better luck next game. Or let's take zerg after lair. Your options are a hydra den, spire, or infestor pit. Who the fuck is going to use infestors or swarm hosts as a key part of their army/strategy after all the nerfs? So what people have been falling back on is the other half, timings. Well guess what? Almost every game has decisionmaking revolving around time or hitting timing windows because time is so basic. Even poker players time their decisions to send false signals to their opponents. That's really not a distinctive game feature or something to be proud of. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On January 24 2016 05:58 BaronVonOwn wrote: EVERY game has planning and decisionmaking in some way. Even people speed-running Super Mario Bros. have a strategy. My argument is about the quality, quantity, and types of choices available. Strategy games are set apart by the fact that you command many units, and usually also build bases and units too. So you would expect that a lot of the interesting choices involve which units and buildings to make. The other half would be when to make them and where to put them. I'm saying that SC2 is lacking the first half, choosing among units and buildings. Each matchup has an "optimal" unit comp / deathball which cannot be strongly countered by another unit comp. If you don't build this comp at best you're playing at a disadvantage and at worst you're giving yourself a free loss. There's a lot of broken tech paths, units, and false choices in this game, it could even be the majority by this point. For example protoss has 3 very distinct late-game tech paths: stargate, robotics, twilight. Did you choose twilight tech? Your prize is a widow mine in your mineral line, better luck next game. Or let's take zerg after lair. Your options are a hydra den, spire, or infestor pit. Who the fuck is going to use infestors or swarm hosts as a key part of their army/strategy after all the nerfs? So what people have been falling back on is the other half, timings. Well guess what? Almost every game has decisionmaking revolving around time or hitting timing windows because time is so basic. Even poker players time their decisions to send false signals to their opponents. That's really not a distinctive game feature or something to be proud of. Infestors are used in every MU right now in Korea, and Neural Parasite got buffed in LotV. Zerg are not nearly as locked in to a few set in stone compositions as the other races, IMO. They're only locked in to roach/rav or LBM or what have you if you're being aggressive in the early game. Otherwise pretty much every single unit except SH is eminently useful and could form the core of an army. | ||
|
Scrubwave
Poland1786 Posts
| ||
|
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
On January 24 2016 07:31 Scrubwave wrote: Blizzard made their bed with decisions regarding sc2 design and now they're getting fucked in it. Well aside from my personal gripe I think the real reason SC2 doesn't appeal to new players is that it was designed to please mainly the most hardcore players. In the group of friends I played Brood War with, I was the only one who played "competitively" like 1v1's on Lost Temple. Everyone else played BGH or money maps and that was true of 90% of Brood War players. Even my friends who were Brood War veterans were all too afraid to play the SC2 1v1 ladder. Hardcore players liked to look down on these filthy casuals but is it funny anymore? I think forcing all players, new or otherwise, into that hypercompetitive, extremely difficult gameplay was a huge mistake but it's all history now. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 24 2016 05:58 BaronVonOwn wrote: So basically you lost a game because you didn't know how to deal with widow mine drops and you rage quit the game forever and then you came here to claim that sc2 has no strategy. Only that you admit it does, but apparently you couldn't make any interesting choices regarding which units or buildings to make to counter widow mine drops. Really?EVERY game has planning and decisionmaking in some way. Even people speed-running Super Mario Bros. have a strategy. My argument is about the quality, quantity, and types of choices available. Strategy games are set apart by the fact that you command many units, and usually also build bases and units too. So you would expect that a lot of the interesting choices involve which units and buildings to make. The other half would be when to make them and where to put them. I'm saying that SC2 is lacking the first half, choosing among units and buildings. Each matchup has an "optimal" unit comp / deathball which cannot be strongly countered by another unit comp. If you don't build this comp at best you're playing at a disadvantage and at worst you're giving yourself a free loss. There's a lot of broken tech paths, units, and false choices in this game, it could even be the majority by this point. For example protoss has 3 very distinct late-game tech paths: stargate, robotics, twilight. Did you choose twilight tech? Your prize is a widow mine in your mineral line, better luck next game. Or let's take zerg after lair. Your options are a hydra den, spire, or infestor pit. Who the fuck is going to use infestors or swarm hosts as a key part of their army/strategy after all the nerfs? So what people have been falling back on is the other half, timings. Well guess what? Almost every game has decisionmaking revolving around time or hitting timing windows because time is so basic. Even poker players time their decisions to send false signals to their opponents. That's really not a distinctive game feature or something to be proud of. There's so many things wrong with your assertations. Apparently there is an optimal unit composition to play the game. Because in BaronVonOwn's world, every game is 20 min no rush, wait till we econ up and get the perfect comp to smash into your perfect comp. Unless you get widow mine dropped. All them broken tech paths. Them dirty GSL protosses, building twilight councils, how dare they! Protoss late game is only allowed one of three tech buildings. No combinations allowed. But then how does the optimal deathball gets built? Add disguised protoss balance whine. Hilarious. Oh and the aforementioned widow mine ends your game. No one makes infestors. Do you even play this game? No? Better claim that an apple is an orange. Therefore there is no strategy in SC2 but timings. Can't tell if trolling, or just wants to balance whine about protoss. | ||
|
Livemau
United States7 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote: So basically you lost a game because you didn't know how to deal with widow mine drops and you rage quit the game forever and then you came here to claim that sc2 has no strategy. Only that you admit it does, but apparently you couldn't make any interesting choices regarding which units or buildings to make to counter widow mine drops. Really? There's so many things wrong with your assertations. Apparently there is an optimal unit composition to play the game. Because in BaronVonOwn's world, every game is 20 min no rush, wait till we econ up and get the perfect comp to smash into your perfect comp. Unless you get widow mine dropped. All them broken tech paths. Them dirty GSL protosses, building twilight councils, how dare they! Protoss late game is only allowed one of three tech buildings. No combinations allowed. But then how does the optimal deathball gets built? Add disguised protoss balance whine. Hilarious. Oh and the aforementioned widow mine ends your game. No one makes infestors. Do you even play this game? No? Better claim that an apple is an orange. Therefore there is no strategy in SC2 but timings. Can't tell if trolling, or just wants to balance whine about protoss. You have to admit, there are *a lot* of situations in SC2 where a person just cheeses you out of the game. Didn't SOS do that *three* times in the world championship, winning in less than 2 minutes or so? In general if you don't have a way of scouting your opponent (and no terran scans since they need the minerals, unless they're okay possibly being behind in economy), then they can come at you with some 7-gate all in that catches you by complete surprise and you have no way to hold it off. Unless you play as safe as possible, but then you're screwed when you discover your opponent is playing the heavy economy game. Its stuff like that which ultimately makes SC2 unfun...and I know that its not just me, because it happens to pro players on their streams *all the time*, in particular with MC's unstoppable 2-base all-ins (or really from any protoss). | ||
showstealer1829
Australia3123 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote: So basically you lost a game because you didn't know how to deal with widow mine drops and you rage quit the game forever and then you came here to claim that sc2 has no strategy. Only that you admit it does, but apparently you couldn't make any interesting choices regarding which units or buildings to make to counter widow mine drops. Really? There's so many things wrong with your assertations. Apparently there is an optimal unit composition to play the game. Because in BaronVonOwn's world, every game is 20 min no rush, wait till we econ up and get the perfect comp to smash into your perfect comp. Unless you get widow mine dropped. All them broken tech paths. Them dirty GSL protosses, building twilight councils, how dare they! Protoss late game is only allowed one of three tech buildings. No combinations allowed. But then how does the optimal deathball gets built? Add disguised protoss balance whine. Hilarious. Oh and the aforementioned widow mine ends your game. No one makes infestors. Do you even play this game? No? Better claim that an apple is an orange. Therefore there is no strategy in SC2 but timings. Can't tell if trolling, or just wants to balance whine about protoss. Maybe he's an Avilo fan | ||
|
ddayzy
259 Posts
On January 24 2016 03:51 Big J wrote: I think defining what someone means by "strategy" is a good start because the general consensus would be the game theoretical one imo (like Djzapz tries to refer to), and in that one it makes no sense to talk about distinctions like strategy or real-time strategy games from other genres: In the general wide-sense any game is a strategy game and any game playing in real-time + Show Spoiler + I guess we have to talk about simulated real-time here to be precise since even SC2 like any other computer program is actually turn-based, the turns just happen way too fast In that light I believe that when someone says that a game is lacking strategy they refer to the decisions that are largely execution independent. Since the prevalence of such decisions (let's call them "internal decisions") are a defining difference of what we understand as strategy game genre (and it's subgenre's like RTS), compared to (let's call them "external") decisions which are based on execution which any game played in real-time naturally have. (e.g. the decision to attack an opponent in a shooter, which in theory has just as high of a chance of killing you, but practically might be surprised by your initiative). This is again nonsens. There allready is a definition for that word so no, you don't have to make up a new one. No SC2 is not turned based. No those games would not be rts games. To be a rts game constitutes more then just including the two components this genre puts most weight on in your game play. There is a whole host of other criterias not in the actual name. Again, a definition of that word allready exist and it is not what you are pretending it to be here. Your last paragraph is down right hilarious, What on gods green earth do you mean by execution independent? What you are actually writing is that strategic decisions is decisions are arbetrary and that what you do is not related to your decisions which makes no sense on any level, so I assume you mena something else then what you are actually saying. | ||
|
lestye
United States4208 Posts
On January 24 2016 08:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote: So basically you lost a game because you didn't know how to deal with widow mine drops and you rage quit the game forever and then you came here to claim that sc2 has no strategy. Only that you admit it does, but apparently you couldn't make any interesting choices regarding which units or buildings to make to counter widow mine drops. Really? There's so many things wrong with your assertations. Apparently there is an optimal unit composition to play the game. Because in BaronVonOwn's world, every game is 20 min no rush, wait till we econ up and get the perfect comp to smash into your perfect comp. Unless you get widow mine dropped. All them broken tech paths. Them dirty GSL protosses, building twilight councils, how dare they! Protoss late game is only allowed one of three tech buildings. No combinations allowed. But then how does the optimal deathball gets built? Add disguised protoss balance whine. Hilarious. Oh and the aforementioned widow mine ends your game. No one makes infestors. Do you even play this game? No? Better claim that an apple is an orange. Therefore there is no strategy in SC2 but timings. Can't tell if trolling, or just wants to balance whine about protoss. my strategy didn't work because my defenses were inadequate and I let cloaked units destroy my base. Clearly there's no strategy involved, ignore my shoddy execution. | ||
|
ddayzy
259 Posts
On January 24 2016 05:58 BaronVonOwn wrote: EVERY game has planning and decisionmaking in some way. Even people speed-running Super Mario Bros. have a strategy. My argument is about the quality, quantity, and types of choices available. Strategy games are set apart by the fact that you command many units, and usually also build bases and units too. So you would expect that a lot of the interesting choices involve which units and buildings to make. The other half would be when to make them and where to put them. I'm saying that SC2 is lacking the first half, choosing among units and buildings. Each matchup has an "optimal" unit comp / deathball which cannot be strongly countered by another unit comp. If you don't build this comp at best you're playing at a disadvantage and at worst you're giving yourself a free loss. There's a lot of broken tech paths, units, and false choices in this game, it could even be the majority by this point. For example protoss has 3 very distinct late-game tech paths: stargate, robotics, twilight. Did you choose twilight tech? Your prize is a widow mine in your mineral line, better luck next game. Or let's take zerg after lair. Your options are a hydra den, spire, or infestor pit. Who the fuck is going to use infestors or swarm hosts as a key part of their army/strategy after all the nerfs? So what people have been falling back on is the other half, timings. Well guess what? Almost every game has decisionmaking revolving around time or hitting timing windows because time is so basic. Even poker players time their decisions to send false signals to their opponents. That's really not a distinctive game feature or something to be proud of. This is completly false. There are some unit compositions that work better versus other unit compositions thus your decision on what to build should be, in part, based on what your oponent has. That doesn't mean there is only one unit you can build to win. It depends on what you want to do, your strategy, in respons to what your oponent is doing, his strategy. This gives the game more strategic depth. What you seem to sugest is that you want to build something completly arbitrary without any regards to what your oponent has. If what you build doesnt matter then it is no longer a strategic decision. | ||
|
ddayzy
259 Posts
On January 24 2016 09:53 radscorpion9 wrote: You have to admit, there are *a lot* of situations in SC2 where a person just cheeses you out of the game. Didn't SOS do that *three* times in the world championship, winning in less than 2 minutes or so? In general if you don't have a way of scouting your opponent (and no terran scans since they need the minerals, unless they're okay possibly being behind in economy), then they can come at you with some 7-gate all in that catches you by complete surprise and you have no way to hold it off. Unless you play as safe as possible, but then you're screwed when you discover your opponent is playing the heavy economy game. Its stuff like that which ultimately makes SC2 unfun...and I know that its not just me, because it happens to pro players on their streams *all the time*, in particular with MC's unstoppable 2-base all-ins (or really from any protoss). If cheeses was a auto win, like you seem to sugest, then every game would be nothing but chees. Last time I actually kept notes I did better versus chees then I did in longer games. I would also dispute your claim that playing against chees is not fun. Some of the most intense games I have had has been low eco baneling versus baneling battles or trying to stop a cannon rush. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
lmao, they are making clickbait out of stu's work :/ | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 24 2016 19:56 Musicus wrote: https://twitter.com/ESPN_Esports/status/691170095574323200 lmao, they are making clickbait out of stu's work :/ I couldn't care less about how ESPN market their material, but it kind of bothers me that people seem to conflate the tweet with the author of the article  | ||
|
GizmoPT
Portugal3040 Posts
| ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
On January 24 2016 20:52 Zealously wrote: I couldn't care less about how ESPN market their material, but it kind of bothers me that people seem to conflate the tweet with the author of the article Everybody thinks that stuchiu is saying it's WCS' faul that Flash, MMA, Rain, Fanta retired. Clearly it's not and clearly he doesn't say that. He says the system doesn't help and it doesn't. I'd really like people who say Korea is fine, to tell me what an upcoming player who is not on a Proleague team, didn't qualify for SSL and lost to a pro like Inno/Zest/Maru/Life in Code A, is supposed to do. That player is fucked and has nothing to play in until the next SSL/GSL qualifier in half a year. That the new WCS system doesn't help this player is a fact. People are just minsunderstanding the message. | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On January 24 2016 21:01 GizmoPT wrote: thats what you get when you make article like that.. gg There is nothing wrong with the article. Sadly, it seems that the majority are over sensitive to anything said that could have the smallest negative meaning towards their game. People retire for their own reasons. The problem is that there are no new talent to replace the old one. Imagine in BW it was the time for Boxer and NaDa to move on but there were no FlaSh or FanTaSy to replace them. Is this a WCS system's fault? Not entirely but it is definitely playing a role. Not about banning Koreans from weekend tournaments, but about the lack of compensation for that loss. The money argument is invalid. People are not showing interest in StarCraft II for a reason thus we are not seeing new names coming. That is what the article is trying to say. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On January 24 2016 21:19 Musicus wrote: Everybody thinks that stuchiu is saying it's WCS' faul that Flash, MMA, Rain, Fanta retired. Clearly it's not and clearly he doesn't say that. He says the system doesn't help and it doesn't. I'd really like people who say Korea is fine, to tell me what an upcoming player who is not on a Proleague team, didn't qualify for SSL and lost to a pro like Inno/Zest/Maru/Life in Code A, is supposed to do. That player is fucked and has nothing to play in until the next SSL/GSL qualifier in half a year. That the new WCS system doesn't help this player is a fact. People are just minsunderstanding the message. I also definitely get the feeling that some people are almost trying to be offended. Both Nathanias and Apollo essentially shit on stu's entire writing career (or at least his writing ability) on Twitter, and I'd expect them to at least read with two eyes before getting upset. | ||
| ||
