....dedication. If you dedicate yourself to playing one race in the game. Just embrace the strengths and weaknesses of that. Just say; "Alright, I'm a Zerg player. I play Zerg. I'm not on the balance-fucking-design team. So I'm going to try and use the tools that are put into the game to the best of my ability. And then increase upon that use over time." Rather than constantly talk about how the shit is nor perfectly fair. Life as a game is not perfectly fair. And is never going to be perfectly fair. So just embracing the non-fairness of reality is a huge step in being a person.
That stuff he says at the end is exactly the way I view life and how I've always looked at games as well. In BW or SC2 whenever I would lose to something that felt broken, I just assumed it had to be fair, so there must be something I forgot or am not doing right. Even during a game, I would think - What the fuck can I build that I don't normally build that might help here? Infestors, Vipers, Swarm hosts, Mass static de, overexpand, Mass queens, etc. etc.
Back in HOTS I remember that mass void shit, and I would lose a game or two with mutas/corruptors or hydras/infestors and be like WHAT THE FUCK DO I DO. Then I looked at all my options and was like oh yea, Mass queens with some infestors and hydras for shits and gigs.
Back in BW I remember when terrans started doing this Leta mech opening with wraiths and vultures. And I was like WTF DO I DO TO THIS SHIT. I would be trying to mass hydras and get my overlords sniped. I would try and get muta but the spire would be too slow and my overlords would get sniped. Then I realized I could wall off ramps with lurker eggs, and use ensnare and scourges or just simply have burrowed hydras in the right places.
And this same concept, mentality applies to life as well. "Oh the patriarchy is holding me back!", or "Oh the 1% are in control of everything!", "I'm not as X as that guy who gets all the girls, "life is harder for me as a minority." etc. You just have some hard work ethic and grit and do your best to surmount the odds. Don't worry about the other guy.
Well, you obviously want to have that mentality in life. SC2 isn't life though, and humans have direct control over how the game operates.
So we can expect more in terms of fairness when we play a game of Starcraft than we can when we live life. And we should expect that.
And what this really come backs to, and what the people who striving to be their best may have forgotten, is that some of us who are no longer striving to be the best Starcraft 2 player we can be, and we just play now for fun.
And poor game design and poor balance aren't fun, especially when I can play so many other games with better design and balance. I want to win or lose at whatever level I'm at because of me. Not because the game is poorly designed and balanced.
On March 25 2016 05:10 BronzeKnee wrote: Well, you obviously want to have this mentality in life. SC2 isn't life though, and humans have direct control over how the game operates.
So we can expect more in terms of fairness when we play a game of Starcraft than we can when we live life. And we should expect that.
And what this really come backs to, and what the people who striving to be their best may have forgotten, is that some of us who are no longer striving to be the best Starcraft 2 player we can be, just play now for fun.
And poor game design and poor balance aren't fun, especially when I can play so many other games with better design and balance. I want to win or lose at whatever level I'm at because of me. Not because the game is poorly designed and balanced.
That is why I don't play SC2 anymore.
Sorry just because you lose at gold level (not saying you are gold btw) doesn't mean the game isn't balanced. Unless there is 2 different balance systems (if Rank is below Platinum then x units are this strong and if above Diamond they are y strong) then you just need to improve and if you keep losing and stay in Bronze league, then that's where you should be and nobody below gold really knows what they are doing anyway.
It was the same in BW and probably every other RTS out there. Game isn't going to be balanced for low levels and high levels alike, it's impossible without a different balance system for both.
So, I don't play like the pros play, but neither will my opponent. And I wouldn't be matched with my opponent on ladder if I was that much better anyway.
And that is where the whole "get better argument" fails. Of course if I was better than my opponent, I'd have a better chance to beat them even if the game is unbalanced, but then, couldn't my opponent just get better too?
And if we both became top players, we'd suffer the same issues at the top that the top players are currently suffering.
I understand when people say "well if your macro was better you would have won." Which is probably often true and useful information when you are striving to be your best. But if you're playing for fun, you look at the loss and say we have equal macro skill, equal micro, but he won with an abusive build, let's take the old 1-1-1 for example, that at the time was getting abused at the top level.
So the gold player had every right to complain about the 1-1-1, even if he was sloppy and his opponent was sloppy. Because eventually no matter how much better he got, he'd just end up facing Puma and losing to his 1-1-1 because the game was poorly balanced.
Sadly, the PvZ winrate now, is worse than the PvT winrate was during the height of the 1-1-1. So yeah, Blizzard isn't doing a good job when it comes to that. It doesn't have to be like this, Blizzard has so far to game when it comes to design.
And at the moment on my account, I play versus diamond and low masters players.
But the moral of this story is, getting better doesn't allow one to escape imbalance and poor game design. Sorry.
You have the right to complain, I guess. That's the 1st amendment right of Americans to free speech.
The thing is you SHOULDN'T complain because it ruins everyone's ladder experience and causes more ppl to complain. For years, the most popular streamers were some of the biggest balance whiners and it has led to an environment where you rarely get "gg" after winning, where people complain about every little thing, and almost never take ownership for their loses.
TRY THIS. Always GG no matter what.
Haven't practiced in a week and fucked up your build? gg. Don't make excuses.
Lag spike hit you in all major battles? Not their fault. gg Don't make excuses.
Lose to a cannon rush? gg Don't make excuses.
Less qq, more pew pew. Battle micro and builds are more diverse than ever in LOTV. play how you like.
On March 25 2016 05:48 TRaFFiC wrote: The thing is you SHOULDN'T complain because it ruins everyone's ladder experience and causes more ppl to complain.
[Citation Needed]
Complaining is not the same thing as being bm. How could it possibly ruin your ladder experience if I write something on TL.net?
On March 25 2016 05:20 BronzeKnee wrote: But the moral of this story is, getting better doesn't allow one to escape imbalance and poor game design. Sorry.
The moral is more like focusing on getting better allows one to escape imbalance and game design issues. Ignorance is bliss. Except you're not actually ignorant because all the effort you put into determining whether the game is unfair or not is inconclusive. It sounds like you decide if you want to accept a loss or not based on how many other players are losing in a similar way and how frequently. Why not forget anyone else exists and just play the game?
And by the way, if you can't accept there being strategies you don't know how to defeat when you don't care about improving then you should not be blaming the game. That's an impossible situation that no game design can fix.
PvZ right now has SO many options. Protoss can take control of the game in so many ways and determine what kind of game is going to be played. I don't know how someone chooses to play SC2 over other kinds of games, experiences the current state of PvZ, and is then turned off by it. It's great right now. Choose any tech you want. Do a rush, do a mid-game timing, do a late-game timing. Don't ever plan to attack at all. Focus on micro. Focus on macro. Scout and counter. Don't scout and just do an all-in and hope for the best. Literally all of this is available in PvZ games right now.
Look, even if you take statistics of a matchup as absolute truth and reflecting the state of the GAME and not the state of the PLAYERS of that race, which is a huuuuuuuuge 'if', then actually think about those stats. If you take 100 games and zerg won 57 of them and protoss won 43, then that looks pretty bad. If it holds up for a little bit then Blizzard actually will take action whether you complain or not. But of those 100 games, many of them were super close at one point and could have gone either way and, if an imbalance in the game actually exists and is the reason for these imbalanced stats, then things got tipped the tiniest bit in favor of zerg in 5 of them, so that instead of it being 52/48, which is not bad, it became 57/43. How much does that actually show up in your games? In 1 in 10 PvZ games you play, zerg gets a win that they shouldn't. And this is ruining your experience? You honestly have no idea which games are being ruined by imbalance. But how could you since you don't even know that the game is imbalanced? It's just an absurd situation.
The most popular games right now are almost all team games and the play of your teammates has WAY more influence over whether you win or not than even the worst case racial imbalance issues in SC2. People are fine with things out of their control affecting the result because the things that are in their control are more than enough to occupy them and satisfy them.
On March 25 2016 05:20 BronzeKnee wrote: So, I don't play like the pros play, but neither will my opponent. And I wouldn't be matched with my opponent on ladder if I was that much better anyway.
And that is where the whole "get better argument" fails. Of course if I was better than my opponent, I'd have a better chance to beat them even if the game is unbalanced, but then, couldn't my opponent just get better too?
And if we both became top players, we'd suffer the same issues at the top that the top players are currently suffering.
I understand when people say "well if your macro was better you would have won." Which is probably often true and useful information when you are striving to be your best. But if you're playing for fun, you look at the loss and say we have equal macro skill, equal micro, but he won with an abusive build, let's take the old 1-1-1 for example, that at the time was getting abused at the top level.
So the gold player had every right to complain about the 1-1-1, even if he was sloppy and his opponent was sloppy. Because eventually no matter how much better he got, he'd just end up facing Puma and losing to his 1-1-1 because the game was poorly balanced.
Sadly, the PvZ winrate now, is worse than the PvT winrate was during the height of the 1-1-1. So yeah, Blizzard isn't doing a good job when it comes to that. It doesn't have to be like this, Blizzard has so far to game when it comes to design.
And at the moment on my account, I play versus diamond and low masters players.
But the moral of this story is, getting better doesn't allow one to escape imbalance and poor game design. Sorry.
Balance is the least of most players problem, really. PuMa wasn't invincible and levels below that it was actually easier for the P to win against 1-1-1 (once the build became famous) because it was predictable, easy to scout and not that hard to counter against most players, if you remotely knew what to do. The only moment 1-1-1 was a hindrance to P players on ladder was when the build wasn't known, because people didn't know how to react properly.
Game design? Maps can be annoying but with vetoes you can still play on maps you want to play on 80% of the time, and you are happy to play on the maps you didn't like the other 20% because it's different. Until really high MMR, you can win with ANY style you want so you can do things you like the most...
The PvZ winrate won't ever matter to you by the way, until very high (or very low) MMR you'll win 50% of the time anyways and the balance has maximum 0.001% influence on win/loss of below pro level players.
On March 25 2016 04:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: And this same concept, mentality applies to life as well. "Oh the patriarchy is holding me back!", or "Oh the 1% are in control of everything!", "I'm not as X as that guy who gets all the girls, "life is harder for me as a minority." etc. You just have some hard work ethic and grit and do your best to surmount the odds. Don't worry about the other guy.
I know this is probably not the place or the time, but fuck it.
Of course you have to work in life and not just push all your problem to other entity. But I can't see, like at all how it is in any form the same concept then is Starcraft ( or any game). Those are competition against another person surround by strict rules and of course in this way you have to agree with the rules and work around them, because that is what the game is and by choosing to play the game you accepted the rules.
Now that is out of the way, life doesn't have anything in common with that, you don't chose to play life, you don't accept the "rules", we create the rules as a society (mostly unconsciously across systems and history) and those rules are impose to everyone. But you don't have to agree to those rules, and in fact in a lot of time you should not agree and you should work to change them. You can be a slave and say, well lets have some good work ethic and that way my master will treat me better, and yes it could work (it is maybe a bit extreme but lets change that to women and predominantly male working environment). But most of the time with a good work ethic you won't have anything close to what you want, and I believe as you deserve. A slave maybe treated better by is master he is still going to be a slave at the end of the day.
If you want slavery to be stop or patriarchy, or prejudice against people with disability etc, you have to yell about whatever is the root of the problem to change it because you can't change it alone, you have to bring other people to agree with you. The "rule" the system can only be change by the change of action of the people. So of course you have to worry about the other guy, because the others guys are the one who create the world you live in!
Working hard does not mean accepting the inequality.
Well, though I agree that this perspective of sc2 teaches you a lessen in life, I would argue that other aspects of sc2 are also relevant in life. For example, sc2 is a game of what you do as much as what your opponent does. This forces you to use your head to deduce what your opponent is doing. Oh, you're so aggressive that this might be an all in? But you have a third base coming up- oh this is just a fake pressure into third then. I better punish you before it's too late. These kinds of instances, I believe, make you better in any kind game, many of which are relevant in many professions.
On March 25 2016 06:51 Pewpz wrote: Why do people fawn over this guy so much?
Serious question - I feel like I've seen him everywhere in the last few months and his opinions are treated like gospel. Is he Day9 v2.0?
He is not Day[9] 2.0, he does however, have a very down to earth approach to how he plays StarCraft 2 and how he analyzes his matches. Next to that he is just an extremely chill person to just listen too when doing other stuff (Indirectly it's thanks to him I managed to finish my education in a time where I had a major mental breakdown).
On March 25 2016 04:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: And this same concept, mentality applies to life as well. "Oh the patriarchy is holding me back!", or "Oh the 1% are in control of everything!", "I'm not as X as that guy who gets all the girls, "life is harder for me as a minority." etc. You just have some hard work ethic and grit and do your best to surmount the odds. Don't worry about the other guy.
I know this is probably not the place or the time, but fuck it.
Of course you have to work in life and not just push all your problem to other entity. But I can't see, like at all how it is in any form the same concept then is Starcraft ( or any game). Those are competition against another person surround by strict rules and of course in this way you have to agree with the rules and work around them, because that is what the game is and by choosing to play the game you accepted the rules.
Now that is out of the way, life doesn't have anything in common with that, you don't chose to play life, you don't accept the "rules", we create the rules as a society (mostly unconsciously across systems and history) and those rules are impose to everyone. But you don't have to agree to those rules, and in fact in a lot of time you should not agree and you should work to change them. You can be a slave and say, well lets have some good work ethic and that way my master will treat me better, and yes it could work (it is maybe a bit extreme but lets change that to women and predominantly male working environment). But most of the time with a good work ethic you won't have anything close to what you want, and I believe as you deserve. A slave maybe treated better by is master he is still going to be a slave at the end of the day.
If you want slavery to be stop or patriarchy, or prejudice against people with disability etc, you have to yell about whatever is the root of the problem to change it because you can't change it alone, you have to bring other people to agree with you. The "rule" the system can only be change by the change of action of the people. So of course you have to worry about the other guy, because the others guys are the one who create the world you live in!
Working hard does not mean accepting the inequality.
Yea we do. You can gg life whenever you want. You can play by whatever rules you want. It all depends on your skill and work ethic and bankroll. Look at oj, look at trump, look at anyone who is an exception, an exceptional person.
On March 25 2016 04:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: And this same concept, mentality applies to life as well. "Oh the patriarchy is holding me back!", or "Oh the 1% are in control of everything!", "I'm not as X as that guy who gets all the girls, "life is harder for me as a minority." etc. You just have some hard work ethic and grit and do your best to surmount the odds. Don't worry about the other guy.
I know this is probably not the place or the time, but fuck it.
Of course you have to work in life and not just push all your problem to other entity. But I can't see, like at all how it is in any form the same concept then is Starcraft ( or any game). Those are competition against another person surround by strict rules and of course in this way you have to agree with the rules and work around them, because that is what the game is and by choosing to play the game you accepted the rules.
Now that is out of the way, life doesn't have anything in common with that, you don't chose to play life, you don't accept the "rules", we create the rules as a society (mostly unconsciously across systems and history) and those rules are impose to everyone. But you don't have to agree to those rules, and in fact in a lot of time you should not agree and you should work to change them. You can be a slave and say, well lets have some good work ethic and that way my master will treat me better, and yes it could work (it is maybe a bit extreme but lets change that to women and predominantly male working environment). But most of the time with a good work ethic you won't have anything close to what you want, and I believe as you deserve. A slave maybe treated better by is master he is still going to be a slave at the end of the day.
If you want slavery to be stop or patriarchy, or prejudice against people with disability etc, you have to yell about whatever is the root of the problem to change it because you can't change it alone, you have to bring other people to agree with you. The "rule" the system can only be change by the change of action of the people. So of course you have to worry about the other guy, because the others guys are the one who create the world you live in!
Working hard does not mean accepting the inequality.
Yea we do. You can gg life whenever you want. You can play by whatever rules you want. It all depends on your skill and work ethic and bankroll. Look at oj, look at trump, look at anyone who is an exception, an exceptional person.
Of course their is exception, person that will achieve great things, doesn't mean that society did not make it harder for them, the fact that Obama became president doesn't change the fact that black people are getting shoot by the police in a stupidly high ratio compare to other ethnic group. How is that "playing by whatever rules you want"?
Exception does not mean that their is no inequality, it just show that those inequality are not rational, Elisabeth the 1st was consider a great queen, doesn't mean 16e century England was a great time for women to be in position of power.
Again, that doesn't mean that you can't ameliorate your life, or that you should not work hard. But you also have to work on the community around you, to change the systemic view of yourself.
And how is Trump an exception, the guy was born a billionaire and the guy is going to die a billionaire, it is a prime of example of social stability.
Playing through beta I took the attitude that the game is 100% balanced, ala day9. You have to focus on what you can control, not what you can't control. I know, nothing new. A million of people have prob said this before. If you truly believe that balance is the problem it shuts off your brain from improving. I doubt any of us would know what true 50/50 balance would look and feel like anyway.
Re: the social equality thing:
Politics aside, Ben Carson's book gifted hands is one of the best I've read. There's a movie by the same name with cuba gooding jr and a 7.8/10 on imdb. It's practically the same as the book (I saw the movie first). He's black (shocker!) from detroit, was failing school before 5th grade, but still became one of the best neurosurgeons in the world. It's one of those things I think everyone would want to watch.
This guys political correctness and overabuse of buzzwords tilts me. And on top of that he was also disingeninous when advertising for the sandbox mode.
On March 25 2016 04:33 MarlieChurphy wrote: And this same concept, mentality applies to life as well. "Oh the patriarchy is holding me back!", or "Oh the 1% are in control of everything!", "I'm not as X as that guy who gets all the girls, "life is harder for me as a minority." etc. You just have some hard work ethic and grit and do your best to surmount the odds. Don't worry about the other guy.
I know this is probably not the place or the time, but fuck it.
Of course you have to work in life and not just push all your problem to other entity. But I can't see, like at all how it is in any form the same concept then is Starcraft ( or any game). Those are competition against another person surround by strict rules and of course in this way you have to agree with the rules and work around them, because that is what the game is and by choosing to play the game you accepted the rules.
Now that is out of the way, life doesn't have anything in common with that, you don't chose to play life, you don't accept the "rules", we create the rules as a society (mostly unconsciously across systems and history) and those rules are impose to everyone. But you don't have to agree to those rules, and in fact in a lot of time you should not agree and you should work to change them. You can be a slave and say, well lets have some good work ethic and that way my master will treat me better, and yes it could work (it is maybe a bit extreme but lets change that to women and predominantly male working environment). But most of the time with a good work ethic you won't have anything close to what you want, and I believe as you deserve. A slave maybe treated better by is master he is still going to be a slave at the end of the day.
If you want slavery to be stop or patriarchy, or prejudice against people with disability etc, you have to yell about whatever is the root of the problem to change it because you can't change it alone, you have to bring other people to agree with you. The "rule" the system can only be change by the change of action of the people. So of course you have to worry about the other guy, because the others guys are the one who create the world you live in!
Working hard does not mean accepting the inequality.
Yea we do. You can gg life whenever you want. You can play by whatever rules you want. It all depends on your skill and work ethic and bankroll. Look at oj, look at trump, look at anyone who is an exception, an exceptional person.
Of course their is exception, person that will achieve great things, doesn't mean that society did not make it harder for them, the fact that Obama became president doesn't change the fact that black people are getting shoot by the police in a stupidly high ratio compare to other ethnic group. How is that "playing by whatever rules you want"?
Exception does not mean that their is no inequality, it just show that those inequality are not rational, Elisabeth the 1st was consider a great queen, doesn't mean 16e century England was a great time for women to be in position of power.
Again, that doesn't mean that you can't ameliorate your life, or that you should not work hard. But you also have to work on the community around you, to change the systemic view of yourself.
And how is Trump an exception, the guy was born a billionaire and the guy is going to die a billionaire, it is a prime of example of social stability.
That's the point, society = game balance / game balance team. Person = you and your ability to overcome that nonsense over others who just throw their hands up saying it's unfair.
I thought it was blacks who shot the most blacks? Anyway, playing by your own rules means you can do whatever the fuck you want to do. It may not always work out for the best, but you can still buy a bunch of guns and try to fight the cops or defraud people with conman shit.
Trump's dad owned a few apt buildings was only a millionaire. He had two sons, one of which became a business man, who has gone bankrupt and then rebuilt an empire etc. The other became and addict and died. If you actually look up a bio about D Trump, he's not just some silver spoon luck box idiot. Yea it helps to have a good start, but he did a lot of shit on his own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
On March 26 2016 03:31 Hider wrote: This guys political correctness and overabuse of buzzwords tilts me. And on top of that he was also disingeninous when advertising for the sandbox mode.
I don't really watch his stuff, just caught this recently. What examples do you mean?
On March 25 2016 05:20 BronzeKnee wrote: But the moral of this story is, getting better doesn't allow one to escape imbalance and poor game design. Sorry.
The moral is more like focusing on getting better allows one to escape imbalance and game design issues. Ignorance is bliss. Except you're not actually ignorant because all the effort you put into determining whether the game is unfair or not is inconclusive. It sounds like you decide if you want to accept a loss or not based on how many other players are losing in a similar way and how frequently. Why not forget anyone else exists and just play the game?
Well the game isn't fun for me anymore that is why. But honestly, I don't think ignorance is bliss.
Again, if you're goal is to become the best you can at something, then of course, you want to tune out things like imbalance out and just play. In fact, the struggle against imbalance makes you a better player. And this has nothing to do with manners. I always gl hf, and always gg. And every game I played I used to mute my opponent at the start too, because it wasn't about what they say, it was about the game.
But if you're trying to simply have fun, it is an entirely different experience.
And we all do this. When we watch TV, we watch shows we like. We don't watch TV shows we don't like so we can get better at watching shows. That doesn't make any sense, it isn't the point of watching TV. And there is where I and many other people are at with Starcraft.
The game literally wouldn't be any more fun if we got better. Because it isn't about getting better for me. It is about having fun. And it doesn't matter what level I play at, if it is frustrating to the face something like the 1-1-1, I will face it no matter what level I'm at. Like I said, back in the day if you got really good enough at SC2, you could play versus Puma's 1-1-1 or Partings Soul-Train and just lose to them. So many people from North America did in big tournaments.
In fact, when I reached high masters and began playing low grand masters, I found the game to be the most frustrating. A simple, small mistake early, would simply cost you the game. There was no coming back. Now, part of that was probably because I relied heavily on timing attacks and screwing up my build order would close the window. But even in macro games, one misclick costs you everything. There were several times when I'd spend 20+ minutes building up only for me or my opponent to make one small error and the game to then end. It wasn't fun, it was terrible game design. But I liked pushing myself to be the best in a competitive atmosphere, so I played it.
Getting better just isn't the solution to game design and balance problems. It never will be. It is only the solution to improving your play.
The game design of Starcraft 2 has many frustrating elements it shouldn't have because it isn't well designed. And if you just want to have fun, then Starcraft 2 at times can be like watching a TV show you don't like, and it isn't fun.
So it really depends on what you want out of Starcraft. If you want to push through the frustrating elements and master them and get really good, that's awesome, Starcraft is a good game for that (though I'd argue the frustrating elements shouldn't be there in the first place). I did that for a long time.
But if you want to have fun, and just relax and play a game after work, games that follow good game design patterns are much better.
I'll leave you guys this, Zileas' (VP of Game Design for LoL) List of Game Design Anti-Patterns:
well BronzeKnee, at least you find your fun in complaining :p I haven't seen one post from you that was positive and I have seen you posting around a lot
You could see it that way. We all have our choices to make, and you have fun complaining about people you think are complaining right? Or maybe you hate doing that, and do things you hate, either way...
But I don't think my last post was negative at all, humor me, tell me why it is. It is just there to educate people who think that many peoples woes with SC2 as a player will go away if they just "get better." I find that to be a mentally that is holding this community and the game from focusing more on fixing the design problems that make it frustrating. Because, as I said, in the end, no matter how good you get the frustrating game design remains. So don't pretend "getting better" solves anything except making you a better player.
And there is a reason League is crushing SC2 right now. And there is a reason I say so many good things about League. I'd probably argue that since I criticize SC2 more than most, I love it more than most because I can see the potential. But it doesn't really matter. In due time, I'll be designing my own RTS game that the people on this forum will be playing, and loving so much more than SC2. You'll see me differently then, but what you think of me won't matter to me then either... the only opinion that matters to me is what I think of myself.
But you are free to act as if my woes with a bad TV show would go away if I would just watch it "better."
On March 28 2016 12:48 BronzeKnee wrote: You could see it that way. We all have our choices to make, and you have fun complaining about people you think are complaining right? Or maybe you hate doing that, and do things you hate, either way...
But I don't think my last post was negative at all, humor me, tell me why it is. It is just there to educate people who think that many peoples woes with SC2 as a player will go away if they just "get better." I find that to be a mentally that is holding this community and the game from focusing more on fixing the design problems that make it frustrating. Because, as I said, in the end, no matter how good you get the frustrating game design remains. So don't pretend "getting better" solves anything except making you a better player.
And there is a reason League is crushing SC2 right now. And there is a reason I say so many good things about League. I'd probably argue that since I criticize SC2 more than most, I love it more than most because I can see the potential. But it doesn't really matter. In due time, I'll be designing my own RTS game that the people on this forum will be playing, and loving so much more than SC2. You'll see me differently then, but what you think of me won't matter to me then either... the only opinion that matters to me is what I think of myself.
But you are free to act as if my woes with a bad TV show would go away if I would just watch it "better."
You are so, so, funny. I will miss your posts when you fade away and fulfil your grandiose plans while we plebeians cower and slaver over your no-doubt spectacular RTS, which will definitively put SC2 into its grave and be able to compete with LoL and DotA 2. Please, spare us insignificant people a thought and continue posting here, pretty please? We do so enjoy being told, as infinitum, about the superiority of LoL, as well as why SC2 is a terrible game. It is certainly refreshing after all the positive propaganda we so often imbibe.
On March 28 2016 12:48 BronzeKnee wrote: You could see it that way. We all have our choices to make, and you have fun complaining about people you think are complaining right? Or maybe you hate doing that, and do things you hate, either way...
But I don't think my last post was negative at all, humor me, tell me why it is. It is just there to educate people who think that many peoples woes with SC2 as a player will go away if they just "get better." I find that to be a mentally that is holding this community and the game from focusing more on fixing the design problems that make it frustrating. Because, as I said, in the end, no matter how good you get the frustrating game design remains. So don't pretend "getting better" solves anything except making you a better player.
And there is a reason League is crushing SC2 right now. And there is a reason I say so many good things about League. I'd probably argue that since I criticize SC2 more than most, I love it more than most because I can see the potential. But it doesn't really matter. In due time, I'll be designing my own RTS game that the people on this forum will be playing, and loving so much more than SC2. You'll see me differently then, but what you think of me won't matter to me then either... the only opinion that matters to me is what I think of myself.
But you are free to act as if my woes with a bad TV show would go away if I would just watch it "better."
You are so, so, funny. I will miss your posts when you fade away and fulfil your grandiose plans while we plebeians cower and slaver over your no-doubt spectacular RTS, which will definitively put SC2 into its grave and be able to compete with LoL and DotA 2. Please, spare us insignificant people a thought and continue posting here, pretty please? We do so enjoy being told, as infinitum, about the superiority of LoL, as well as why SC2 is a terrible game. It is certainly refreshing after all the positive propaganda we so often imbibe.
I do not care which game will kill SC2, but it is Blizzard who is actually trying to kill the game. From WoL the game become faster, more fragile and more frustrating. And that is why I almost stopped playing in HotS and stopped playing in LotV. Hey, more harass, faster killing, faster game. I cannot play this game for enjoyment. Blizzard is probably the first company who tried to pleasure HC guys - which is fine - but they forget, totally forget, about me and Bronzeknee, peoples, who play this game after the work. People, who do not want to become good at this game, who want to enjoy the game. The game is now more frustrating than WoL or HotS ever was. If I compare it to BL-infestor or SH, I still prefer those games than LotV.
I do not care about LoL, but the rest of the post BronzeKnee I have to totally agree. Get better is total bullshit if you want to just play the game and enjoy it. That is why the player base is getting lower and lower each time Blizzard does something fancy, creative and "faster harassment and more skills means more micro" thing.
I want to watch Neuro but every time I do his mechanics drive me up a wall...also the first time I clicked on this thread was totally because of the capital L in "Life." Clickbait!
Definitely, as a Zerg player, you really really have to accept the strengths and weaknesses of the race. If you can't do that you're just gonna be angry with it. Especially creep and lack of T1 AA.
On March 28 2016 16:35 EatingBomber wrote: which will definitively put SC2 into its grave and be able to compete with LoL and DotA 2.
Compete? I was surprised you wrote that. There will be no competition.
It is all in the state of mind.
"If you think you are beaten, you are; If you think you dare not, you don't. If you'd like to win, but you think you can't, It is almost certain that you won't.
If you think you'll lose, you're lost; For out of the world we find Success begins with a fellow's will It's all in the state of mind.
If you think you're outclassed, you are; You've got to think high to rise. You've got to be sure of yourself before You can ever win the prize.
Life's battles don't always go To the stronger or faster man; But sooner or later the man who wins Is the one who thinks he can!"
I think I can. Do you think you can achieve your dreams? In the end, everyone successful leaves a bunch of losers and haters in their wake who doubted them. I recommend you spend your time achieving your goals and dreams, instead of hating, but then again, maybe you are just part of my wake.
SC will never be perfectly fair or balanced. So the parallel to life is obvious which is neither fair or balanced--you are born into a loving household, with power, with money, with intelligence, etc. You are dealt a hand as in SC. You do the best you can is basically what Neuro is saying and no more.
I am really not sure if balance exists in lower leagues. If both sides do more mistakes, the game gets more random. I assume that the mistakes are so big, that any balance concern is just too small to matter. If balance varies winrates around 5%, their mistakes let winrates vary around 10%.
If we take the variance of all winrates in lower leagues and if the variance is really higher than 5% then that would be a strong indication for that.
On April 06 2016 14:37 chouithegewy wrote: SC will never be perfectly fair or balanced. So the parallel to life is obvious which is neither fair or balanced--you are born into a loving household, with power, with money, with intelligence, etc. You are dealt a hand as in SC. You do the best you can is basically what Neuro is saying and no more.
If you could change the rules of life to make it more fair, would you? I think morally you'd have to (Read Famine, Affluence, and Morality: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm ) but that is a philosophical question.
Now, if you could change the rules of SC2 to make it more fair, would you? Again, philosophical at heart, but the answer is essentially rhetorical.
Of course, there is a group of people who can change the rules of SC2, and quite easily at that. So they have an obligation to do just that. And if a government, or anyone for that matter, fails in their obligation to do something, they should be held responsible and accountable, and either fix that situation, or step aside.
So instead of trying to "get better" to overcome balance or game design problems that exist from the bottom to the very top of the ladder, shouldn't we be trying to get those in charge of the rules of SC2 to fulfill their obligations?
On March 28 2016 01:55 BronzeKnee wrote: But if you want to have fun, and just relax and play a game after work, games that follow good game design patterns are much better.
I'll leave you guys this, Zileas' (VP of Game Design for LoL) List of Game Design Anti-Patterns:
fuck that. have fun with your casual shit. just agree to disagree. if you like game design and "having fun" and i like self-improvement and competition, then we have different values. there's no point for people like you to come to a community of people like me to try to force your preferences on me.
I think a pro players needs to have this mentality towards the game. You take what's there and squeeze the best juice out of it.
Personally, once a huge fan of sc2 I gradually lost interest in playing after Hots came out. The game became too complex and volatile for me. I still watch though.
On March 25 2016 05:20 BronzeKnee wrote: So, I don't play like the pros play, but neither will my opponent. And I wouldn't be matched with my opponent on ladder if I was that much better anyway.
And that is where the whole "get better argument" fails. Of course if I was better than my opponent, I'd have a better chance to beat them even if the game is unbalanced, but then, couldn't my opponent just get better too?
And if we both became top players, we'd suffer the same issues at the top that the top players are currently suffering.
I understand when people say "well if your macro was better you would have won." Which is probably often true and useful information when you are striving to be your best. But if you're playing for fun, you look at the loss and say we have equal macro skill, equal micro, but he won with an abusive build, let's take the old 1-1-1 for example, that at the time was getting abused at the top level.
So the gold player had every right to complain about the 1-1-1, even if he was sloppy and his opponent was sloppy. Because eventually no matter how much better he got, he'd just end up facing Puma and losing to his 1-1-1 because the game was poorly balanced.
Sadly, the PvZ winrate now, is worse than the PvT winrate was during the height of the 1-1-1. So yeah, Blizzard isn't doing a good job when it comes to that. It doesn't have to be like this, Blizzard has so far to game when it comes to design.
And at the moment on my account, I play versus diamond and low masters players.
But the moral of this story is, getting better doesn't allow one to escape imbalance and poor game design. Sorry.
Dude. You seem so set on proving how Starcraft isn't fun for you that your entire argument is focussed on your experience. If you're not having fun, and the game is so fucking broken as you claim, why stick around? Also, getting better is how you get over balance issues. I'm sorry PvZ is pissing you off right now, you probably should take a break. Your post reeks of a bruised ego, We know that PvZ sucks but literally nothing you said was constructive. If you're playing for fun, do something that's fun. Surely venting on TL isn't that fun.
On April 06 2016 14:50 todespolka wrote: I am really not sure if balance exists in lower leagues.
It does and is ignored by most people, yet at the same time people are in dark why there is no new blood and casuals don't stick around.
Simplest examples: - baneling. In a world where a bronze player can only a-move, and his opponent can only a-move, banelings are as op as they can get. - race per league distribution. Protoss occupies most places in lowest leagues, while zerg is underrepresented. It simply means protoss is harder to learn then zerg by a great margin. Not imbalanced, but just takes more commitment. Shifting through 15 button press abilities is harder then a-move and spamming one or two spells.
"Get better" doesn't work for someone who wants to relax after 10h shift at work for half an hour before walking the dog and spending some time with kids.
And finally, it is not exclusive for the game to be fun and challenging at the same time. Lol pros are also not casuals, even if the game is more casual friendly.
I personally am more interested in how you apply this mentality to life, since it's something I've thought about too. This whole thing about trying to do the best with what you have vs. trying to make what you have better.
Ultimately, my feeling is, why is this inherently an either/or thing. I get that as an SC2 player (or a whatever player), if you want to improve, you have to sit down and use what you got to do it. And I get that letting yourself worry about things like balance and such is counterproductive insofar as it can make you oblivious to the things you've done on an individual level that contributed to your losing streak or whatever. So maybe it's easier, in a way, to just be like, screw thinking about balance, it's not helping me. But sometimes I do think it's worth taking a moment, maybe not when you're playing the game, not even when you're watching a replay, but when you're, I dunno, lying in bed, or chatting with a friend about the game, to think, is there a way in which this could be more fair? I don't see why there isn't a place for those questions too.
I dunno, personally, I think they're both relevant, but you have to know when it's helpful to think about each of them (and when it isn't).
One thing I've found that greatly improved my enjoyment of the game is to play team games. In team games, I can focus on making the units that I enjoy making, and my allies can cover for my weaknesses. Queue times are shorter than in DotA 2, despite that game having many more players than this one. This suggests to me that the team game player base is much larger than most people realize because we don't have consistent stats on team players.
Heck, it was even confirmed a while back that coop players outnumber all ladder players.
I wouldn't be surprised if team players actually outnumber 1v1 players, as most of them play unranked, and are therefore not counted in community league player counts.
On April 08 2016 02:23 Nazara wrote: "Get better" doesn't work for someone who wants to relax after 10h shift at work for half an hour before walking the dog and spending some time with kids.
I would say SC2 in general, and not just "getting better at SC2", is not something you do to relax. At least it's not for me. I love playing it and play when I can, but that's not usually after work because I'm just too tired to play it. Typically I just want to come home, chill, and turn the brain off.
On April 08 2016 02:23 Nazara wrote: "Get better" doesn't work for someone who wants to relax after 10h shift at work for half an hour before walking the dog and spending some time with kids.
I would say SC2 in general, and not just "getting better at SC2", is not something you do to relax. At least it's not for me. I love playing it and play when I can, but that's not usually after work because I'm just too tired to play it. Typically I just want to come home, chill, and turn the brain off.
I would agree. And added that this is why SC2 has so low player base
EPT
