EPTwww.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/507621-is-sc2-too-fast?page=5#83
Good post. That Korean guy hits it spot on.
Is SC2 too fast? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/507621-is-sc2-too-fast?page=5#83 Good post. That Korean guy hits it spot on. | ||
Poopi
France12762 Posts
On April 16 2016 00:48 Eternal Dalek wrote: Hey folks, can you guys not attack the OP's skill level or perceived skill level? Even progamers find the game too fast and frantic. The feedback from Korean progamers back during the LotV beta was that the game was too hard. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/489623-canatas-commentary-on-lotv Let that sink in for a bit. The Korean scene thought that LotV was too hard. The Korean scene actually raised issues about the barrier to entry instead of the typical reply you get from the foreigner community of "git gud scrub." Is Canata representative of the whole korean scene? xD Even foreigners think LotV being faster paced is more enjoyable. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On April 16 2016 05:27 Poopi wrote: Is Canata representative of the whole korean scene? xD Even foreigners think LotV being faster paced is more enjoyable. How about instead of discrediting the person senselessly, you read Canata's thoughts and tell us if you think he's wrong? | ||
|
Poopi
France12762 Posts
On April 16 2016 05:45 Incognoto wrote: How about instead of discrediting the person senselessly, you read Canata's thoughts and tell us if you think he's wrong? In the link I see praise of Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone, I think I have read enough :o; | ||
|
Haukinger
Germany131 Posts
On April 16 2016 05:27 Poopi wrote:Is Canata representative of the whole korean scene? xD Even foreigners think LotV being faster paced is more enjoyable. What does it mean that an unknown percentage of foreigners believes something to prove that a korean is wrong who thinks something else is wrong? | ||
|
Poopi
France12762 Posts
On April 16 2016 05:52 Haukinger wrote: What does it mean that an unknown percentage of foreigners believes something to prove that a korean is wrong who thinks something else is wrong? Koreans are perceived as the fastest players so I guess the person's point was something like "see, asians think it's too hard so it's probably too hard!!" so I guess that if perceived slow foreigner are fine with it's because it's actually fine :o. | ||
|
Laul
27 Posts
1. Gamespeed makes the game more exciting 2. Strategy in sc2 is based more-so on build order and what units you wanna make before the game even starts. (not so much in positioning or the environment, good unit lines etc) 3. And (this is a huge leap, but humor me) sc2 has a lot in common with games like csgo or League of Legends, the mechanics being quick and the strategy only really showing up before the game/round starts. (less so in league, since the entire game is coordinating and finding great flanks and stuff) So, is Sc2 really a ''strategy'' game like it says on the box in comes in? | ||
|
Laul
27 Posts
On April 16 2016 01:01 DjayEl wrote: You will never be able to run as fast a a professional soccer player if you do not practice at their level, which is one of the reasons you (and your friends as a team) would never beat a pro soccer team. This does not mean you cannot enjoy playing soccer casually with your friends against an equally-trained team in your local town, nor that no strategy does kick in at your level because of this "glass ceiling" you had yet to reach to play on a pro level. In addition, in SC2, I would say up to top diamond, planning ahead your next moves and knowing exactly what to do at all times >>>> raw speed. Played ZvP (in HotS) against Adelscott once who was using 3x less apm than me and was still kicking my ass game after game just because every of his clicks was so much more effective and well planned. Confessed his low apm was preventing him to beat the best players though, but does that even matter for us mere mortals anyways? Honestly I’m pretty sure any master-level playercan beat any player up to plat (whatever the race is) while not going past 50 apm at any given time, and I’m pretty sure they would still win 8 times out of 10… Might be wrong on this one, but it would be pretty interesting to test. Maybe someone should test that ^_^ would be pretty fucking sweet if you ask me. A whole new way to play sc2, lower game speed, bigger maps, some new mechanics (like actually needing to move supplies like ammo, gas etc) maybe supply routes, I dunno would be cool to see pros apply fast game speed knowledge there. | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
On April 16 2016 05:58 Laul wrote: 2. Strategy in sc2 is based more-so on build order and what units you wanna make before the game even starts. (not so much in positioning or the environment, good unit lines etc) I kinda disagree here, when both player know what they're doing, positioning and engaging is everything. Just look at TvT today : nothing important is decided pre-game (cause you know what your opponent will be doing) and it all comes down to the tankivacs' dance. | ||
|
Haukinger
Germany131 Posts
On April 16 2016 05:58 Laul wrote: So, is Sc2 really a ''strategy'' game like it says on the box in comes in? I'd call it more of a rock-paper-scissors-with-execution - you chose beforehand what you're going to do and then execute as perfectly as possible and hope that you chose a strong "timing" or "all-in" or "cheese" or whatever. Games that last to the thinking-requiring part of the game (a.k.a. out mined map) are really rare. | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
if you're visualizing where the strategy lies, i think you first need to clearly define what sort of gameplay is strategic in a game you'd like to play. this is a forum based on starcraft--widely regarded as the best and most challenging strategy game--but it's a bit shallow to be asking why something supposed to be strategic doesn't feel right. maybe you enjoy the gameplay of setting up a line of long-ranged units that are supposed to be strong, incorrectly deigning that that is real strategy. it is not. if the competitive scenes have ever taught you anything, it's that you need to look at the bigger picture to understand the status of a game. the only thing that's set is the purpose of the game, which is to kill all the buildings, or in a similar fashion, force a forfeit. honestly some people like watching armies meet and forever think that building a line of defenses is a proof of strategic thinking, which is why i make these statements about it. why won't these same people compare their experiences with lesser known games and describe in the same way how those situations felt? i think it's probably because their experiences in these games are shallow in general. one of the arguments i see is that a single unit can sweep in and do way too much damage. i'm not going to talk semantics about the difference between strategy and tactics, but the fact that you can use that one unit to make that chaos, is a proof that there are strategies; everything else (like balancing) is moot. for the people who feel that there is absolutely no strategy, i strongly feel that you guys aren't remembering or haven't experienced the time that you've been thoroughly owned and humbled. one of the escape methods leading those experiences is blaming some factor other than one's own skill at playing the game. if you don't like losing, or even winning in specific ways, you do not enjoy the game. it's not even a matter of whether the game has merits to its strategic gameplay or not. people just play games and give it all extra meaning to validate thoughts and ideas. it's only when you forget the obnoxious details and get competitive where strategy is developed... and i hope that somehow gives you what you wanted to hear. i realize everyone more or less takes these sort of criticisms positively and negatively. if you do enjoy the game but have the same shower thoughts about whatever strategy/builds/etc. exists in the game, continue thinking about what you do enjoy, rather than what you don't. this is because you need to compete and problem-solve, and not get stuck figuring why you dislike something and then increasing your dislike for it. | ||
|
Green_25
Great Britain696 Posts
| ||
|
Laul
27 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:36 nanaoei wrote: i think it's such a trapping question to ask whether it's really a strategy game or where the strategy actually exists if at all. if you're visualizing where the strategy lies, i think you first need to clearly define what sort of gameplay is strategic in a game you'd like to play. this is a forum based on starcraft--widely regarded as the best and most challenging strategy game--but it's a bit shallow to be asking why something supposed to be strategic doesn't feel right. maybe you enjoy the gameplay of setting up a line of long-ranged units that are supposed to be strong, incorrectly deigning that that is real strategy. it is not. if the competitive scenes have ever taught you anything, it's that you need to look at the bigger picture to understand the status of a game. the only thing that's set is the purpose of the game, which is to kill all the buildings, or in a similar fashion, force a forfeit. honestly some people like watching armies meet and forever think that building a line of defenses is a proof of strategic thinking, which is why i make these statements about it. why won't these same people compare their experiences with lesser known games and describe in the same way how those situations felt? i think it's probably because their experiences in these games are shallow in general. one of the arguments i see is that a single unit can sweep in and do way too much damage. i'm not going to talk semantics about the difference between strategy and tactics, but the fact that you can use that one unit to make that chaos, is a proof that there are strategies; everything else (like balancing) is moot. for the people who feel that there is absolutely no strategy, i strongly feel that you guys aren't remembering or haven't experienced the time that you've been thoroughly owned and humbled. one of the escape methods leading those experiences is blaming some factor other than one's own skill at playing the game. if you don't like losing, or even winning in specific ways, you do not enjoy the game. it's not even a matter of whether the game has merits to its strategic gameplay or not. people just play games and give it all extra meaning to validate thoughts and ideas. it's only when you forget the obnoxious details and get competitive where strategy is developed... and i hope that somehow gives you what you wanted to hear. i realize everyone more or less takes these sort of criticisms positively and negatively. if you do enjoy the game but have the same shower thoughts about whatever strategy/builds/etc. exists in the game, continue thinking about what you do enjoy, rather than what you don't. this is because you need to compete and problem-solve, and not get stuck figuring why you dislike something and then increasing your dislike for it. Yea yea! For sure! A 3 banshee hitsquad wiping out a mineral line, or a reaper early game IS a strategic decision. (granted, you're pretty limited with early game decisions that make sense and won't result in an instant death) I like the picture you painting with the long line of ranged units, it really helps visualize what a lot of "Slow-supporters" really imagine in a strategy game. I think the best RTS we could find would be along the lines of Total War, or maybe CIV. The parts I hate about both however is the lack of a real comp. scene, and that they aren't like SC2 with building construction and stuff. If you could make your most ideal RTS, what would it be like? (features, inspirations, etc) | ||
|
Laul
27 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:43 Green_25 wrote: A lot of people suck at sc2. That's what it comes down to, and people need to be honest. I suck at it. I'm too slow, and there's nothing wrong with that. Yes there is strategy, it's just real-time. I'm great at turn-based strategy (maybe the OP should try it), but I enjoy both. I can just accept that I suck at one whilst succeed in the other. At the end of the day, I still have fun, and the challenge is interesting. Too many gamers have an obsession with being 'lite'. That's true, but we can't forget the little people (the majority of the ones tossing their money to Blizzard) who can't play at 666 apm. A game like CSGO has a little more of a balanced difficulty curve when it comes to experienced players vs less experienced ones, (the awp is a one shot, thus a team with a good awp-picker can clutch wins with a little luck) it's also an fps meaning you can get back into the game and keep your momentum going easier. In sc2, you lose a game either in two minutes, or 20-40 later. You then have to work your way back up to get back to a point where you can start learning again. (Like, you're good at handling cheese now [you've defended against it so many times by now] but you still lack experience in late game strats and stuff, but your games always end before or during those games and you can't get better without grinding through 20 minutes of the overall same game play for however long your game before the late game lasts.) Might be confusing to read but, I hope you can somewhat comprehend what I'm trying to say. | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
from the very start, unit groups and having better units for better situations has all been the feel for the younger gamer in me. my friends and i liked to feel, hear, see, and command things we earn+produce and match them up against each other along the same timeline. whoever does better in that same time, they did better, they're cooler, they're the people to beat! we get to see the results and actively try to make a difference. eventually it get to the point of attrition, external forces like micro, game philosophy, discussing. and now we are at an age where we no longer hold LAN parties, very often. at least, it's not our only option for playing games together. strategy games were cool because we could make alliances outside the ingame structure. the game was the proving grounds and anything outside that sandbox was preparation time. that is what i miss about gaming, rather than whether i can keep up in today's meta/norms/ingame competitive atmosphere or not. i just hope you guys can figure out what you want out of gaming and RTS, rather than just blame the game itself. these days and for me if i'm trying to have that same set of feelings as i described above, i'm yearning to get a group of good friends to play board games together. try it sometime if you haven't already. | ||
|
DinosaurPoop
687 Posts
| ||
|
Laul
27 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:25 Gwavajuice wrote: I kinda disagree here, when both player know what they're doing, positioning and engaging is everything. Just look at TvT today : nothing important is decided pre-game (cause you know what your opponent will be doing) and it all comes down to the tankivacs' dance. For sure, but I'm thinking in more of a general sense. It's understandable that more experienced players are better and can whoop skrubs all day, but there should be at least some kind of way for lesser players to play on their level somewhat. If the game was made in a way where stronger defensive positions really matters, (i.e, like taking real world strategic positions and structure applying it in game for some great results) maybe then the game wouldn't be seen as this elitist sorta, yknow... exclusive group. | ||
|
Laul
27 Posts
On April 16 2016 07:12 nanaoei wrote: i think about total war and mass warfare games too. really, i haven't played anything seriously past supreme commander, warhammer 40k, starcraft, and warcraft which are all really different as you know. from the very start, unit groups and having better units for better situations has all been the feel for the younger gamer in me. my friends and i liked to feel, hear, see, and command things we earn+produce and match them up against each other along the same timeline. whoever does better in that same time, they did better, they're cooler, they're the people to beat! we get to see the results and actively try to make a difference. eventually it get to the point of attrition, external forces like micro, game philosophy, discussing. and now we are at an age where we no longer hold LAN parties, very often. at least, it's not our only option for playing games together. strategy games were cool because we could make alliances outside the ingame structure. the game was the proving grounds and anything outside that sandbox was preparation time. that is what i miss about gaming, rather than whether i can keep up in today's meta/norms/ingame competitive atmosphere or not. i just hope you guys can figure out what you want out of gaming and RTS, rather than just blame the game itself. Well said sir. Meta does take a lot out of a game's true enjoyment at times. I can remember having so much fun making mass armies of Riflemen and Footmen in WC3, and watching em wreck face. But then when I started learning more about the meta and what not, I'd get angry and stressed trying to keep up with my opponent, rather than role-playing as a Lordaeron general. Sometimes I feel bad after a game of Sc2 even after a win, I'm shaking and I sweat a lot, my head hurts and I'm jittery from how much focus/stress I was just under. Do you keep playing a game if it's not "enjoyable" ? I mean I can't just put it down, I spent like 60 smackeroos on the bastard >.> | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
On April 16 2016 07:18 Laul wrote: Well said sir. Meta does take a lot out of a game's true enjoyment at times. I can remember having so much fun making mass armies of Riflemen and Footmen in WC3, and watching em wreck face. But then when I started learning more about the meta and what not, I'd get angry and stressed trying to keep up with my opponent, rather than role-playing as a Lordaeron general. Sometimes I feel bad after a game of Sc2 even after a win, I'm shaking and I sweat a lot, my head hurts and I'm jittery from how much focus/stress I was just under. Do you keep playing a game if it's not "enjoyable" ? I mean I can't just put it down, I spent like 60 smackeroos on the bastard >.> my articulation is pretty bad and i'm sorry, but i think the idea is that games are more fun with people who are willing to roll with you. i'm not trying to say much with this, but: maybe you or anyone else could consider it a $60 lesson. i mean it brought you here, talking to us, or you learned a little more about what you want in a game. of course there's that whole deal with expectations. WoL had huge expectations, and didn't meet a larger fraction of all of it. that is however a wake-up point about games being produced and played these days. i don't remember when i hit this rut of enjoying games less. personally speaking (and this is very different for each person) i didn't have a great upbringing surrounding my hobby for games. i instantly fell in love with playing counterstrike competitive, and then as a really young guy, i went to the top competitions. i could not convince my parents or brother that it was going to be a thing and eventually they threw out my computer. that wonderment for gaming just did not go away. and here i am in my older years trying to regain that time i felt i lost by not playing to my heart's content all those years ago. i've heard similar stories before from other people i've met from the same sort of generation, and i'm sure it still happens today. and after all that gaming, all these years later, i've reached a point where i can finally say i'm satisfied, or filled. there are still regrets, but i've received so much out of gaming already, including all the knowledge and having new learning habits stemming from solving problems in games. even just the fact that you could put so much into a game is a level of reassurance that you can hope to put your all into something else. in my opinion, where there's money to support all the things you ever want to do in life (whether for yourself or others), that's a viable main pathway in life. gaming was not like that before. i actually think our little microcosm of gaming could have easily happened in the reverse order compared to how it is now, where money existed, then disappeared. right now it's simply in a spotlight. what i mean to say though is i hope each rts player has a great story to share even if it seems as small as one average ingame victory. as long as it stays with you--memories unaltered--it's a valuable kind of lesson for what you want in other games or perhaps what you want to achieve as long as you keep playing. unfortunately as it is, especially for a 1v1 game like starcraft 2, our fate and most of our enjoyment is entirely up to us. nobody would believe me if i went into an interview for game-testing or game designing and told them that i had two GM accounts in KR and just decided to stop and play team-games only, as my sort of proof of experience or street cred. usually they'll only see that i'm now a casual and a stream not worth watching for gameplay alone; maybe even that my ideas about gaming are skewed or warped. the fact is, the most endearing memories about gaming, i'd confidently say, are about playing with friends. with starcraft you have to put in a whole lot of extra effort to build or join one of those communities. and in general, it's difficult to find all these different people at the same point in life as you, and who simply want to enjoy the game as it is... in a niche sort of game as starcraft is now. it's a 1v1, with a random stranger, that's you know, just how it turned out to be. it's entirely different when you're practicing and playing with one or two other people who are just as into it as you are. worlds apart. | ||
|
Laul
27 Posts
On April 16 2016 07:14 DinosaurPoop wrote: I'm somewhat surprised on everyone's definitions of strategy here. I always considered execution and strategy to be one and the same. Executing something perfectly often involves having to make a million tiny different decisions and answer them all perfectly. For example, it's trivial with anyone with decent mouse control to land 2-3 forcefields in a rough formation instantly. To know figure out the best way to do it in the heat of battle is a whole other thing. Or for example when holding an allin, you often have to juggle your attention. You can't micro your immortal and split your probes at the same time (something even the best of pros can struggle with), but it's fairly dangerous to lose both. It's these types of small decisions that makes the difference as the game goes on. You can easily point out a lot of mistakes from even GSL Code S Finals games, and yet the fact of the matter is, these guys will be making far less of these tactical mistakes than anyone else will, which makes them so good at this game. And, at the end of the day, we all tailor our strategies to our execution. Some of us are good at slow, defensive, positional styles that give lots of time to think. Some of us are good at swiss cheese, some of us are just horrible and just need to make those 7 extra warpgates because we can't spend our money properly, and then 10 more pylons because we can't manage our supply properly. Some of us can be TLO creative. There's always strategy at every level-- if you and your opponent have roughly equal mechanical ability, one avenue to beat him is to out-strategize him, no? I find it's just a shame that no matter how creative or involved you are in your strategy/personal playstyle, you'll never actually "be good" unless you play in the holy meta everyone worships. "If you don't build x unit at x supply you insta lose " is what a lot of players, and myself, find to be true in practice, and overall the greatest deterrent to really enjoying this game, a lack of variation I suppose. Just my take on it though. What do you think? How would you like to play the game vs how you should play the game? | ||
| ||
