|
i tire of these arguments. early lives of games are all riddled with inconsistency. in particular, RTS are riddled with inconsistency until people have an intuitive feel for timings. on top of that, the maps are just terrible, making skillless all-ins easy to win. combine that with difficulty scouting, and you find that all-ins are almost always very strong as they're first discovered. every all-in so far has seemed really strong for various amounts of time, then people figure it out and it just becomes a skill check where if you know how to handle it, you come out destroying it, if not or if you execute poorly, you die.
if these maps look to be staying this way for a long time, which as new maps begin to be rotated, they appear to be moving the opposite direction from easy to all in, and if people learn the timings of various all-ins and come to find that despite understanding the timings that it is unbeatable AND it isn't patched... if both of these things occur, begin complaining with all your might. until then, work on learning to play better.
beyond that, + Show Spoiler +MC won, and he is the better player. he destroyed rain, so what does GSL have to do with it? and if the finals doesn't, why are you making this thread now when the complete opposite happened?
and regarding SF... different game completely. it's not even remotely similar in so many ways that it just doesn't make sense. there's no such things as build orders and scouting in SF, which is what make those worse players win some games.
|
I feel bad for people who thinks they are good just because they are super abusive. Being abusive relies on your players making mistakes which DOESNT mean your good. Foxer can do one freaken strategy that is super abusive. If you believe that the micro and interface is easier to do in SC2, then im sure you can agree with me that it is just play abusive. You don't have the retarded units in bw that you actually had to micro. Being able to spread and micro marines is no where near as hard as being able to consistently micro dragoons and macro at same time. He is just a trendy player who will lose consistently once people figure his one dimensional style out so I don't consider him as a good player at all. A good player is able to come up with best macro decision and a solid death push.(Jinro is actually pretty damn good example of this) I'm sick and tired of hearing about people not understand how hard it is to scout and play against a 2 rax build. You have so much marines build up in terran's base that it is near impossible to send something up and not have it die. Zerg does not have a observers or scan that instantly allows you to see what your opponent is doing. Their only option is just to let the drones build up and wait to see whether you going to get attacked or not. Zerg also don't have any good easy stationary defense like force field or bunkers. It is just super easy for a lesser terran to beat a superior zerg because of having such imperfect information. And I agree with people who thinks one base play to be consistently apparent through out the life of SC2. Chrono boost, warp in, mules, larvre inject just allows you to get such big force in early game that all ins will be super strong. The last point I want to make is whether I mind these cheese at all. To be quite honest, I enjoy watching these type of plays in a tournament. The main reason is that I know that there will be a FAR superior player will just be able to break this and just make a fool out of the other guy. I thank whoever bothered to read this long post and welcome any response ^_^
|
SC2 is not the type of game where the better player wins every time. It's still in its infancy so I think it'll be a while before we have a true bonjwa. If you want a game where the better player always wins, try Quake Live. It requires a lot of mousing/strategic skill.
|
if a single baneling can kill 8 marines at a time, then the marine is not broken. Idra is just a pathetic QQer and cries about everything, and I play zerg too.
|
On December 19 2010 05:52 Avril_Lavigne wrote: if a single baneling can kill 8 marines at a time, then the marine is not broken. Idra is just a pathetic QQer and cries about everything, and I play zerg too.
a single baneling cant kill 8 marines lol
i would say the game doesnt always reward the best players as there are simply too much cheese options and im honestly convinced that cheesing is too easy and too sucessful atm plus there are several maps that heavily favor races in certain matchups
|
Not every single cheese/all-in has been seen enough for everyone to know all of its tells. Once good players start figuring all of that out to a tee, then it'll separate the good from the cheese much better.
|
there has always been a air of uncertanty in SC:BW and SC2, but in Sc2 it is much more magnified because it is so young and people are still feeling out the defensive timing.
|
yeah im sure once sc2 stabilizes it will be less luck based. dont forget tho that element of luck can make the games extremely exciting because sometimes ppl can just pull out an unexpected win to wow everyone. i do agree with idra's statement that MK is getting kinda bad...i mean in gsl2 he dominated using basically 1 strategy (with the occasional clumsy banshee rush). admittedly MK has the most godly marine micro atm, he needs to stop being so completely 1-sided and mix is up more. i do hope he will adjust his style for GSL4 as i found his matches to be extremely exciting in gsl2. but also i think idra needs to look at himself as well...his early game isnt very good and hes quite a stubborn and mechanical player. not a lot of innovation. theres so many games of his ive seen where he could win easily, but refused to change his tactics (much like MK) and lost, even tho he couldve easily transitioned into something else and win.
|
if the lakers or celtics lose a game of basketball vs a less skillful team; no one says that basketball doesn't reward skill. no one questions the height of the hoop or the courtsize. we just accept that even the best teams can't win every game. why should starcraft be different?
|
On December 18 2010 23:06 composition wrote: hidden information: Starcraft Poker
complete information: Street Fighter Chess
Pretty much this. Speaking as both an SC2 player and a Street Fighter player, that's the main difference. The complaints of cheese is that these builds catch the "better" player off guard and is able to sneak a win. There's no equivalent of that in Street Fighter, because both players see everything. If they get hit, it's because they didn't block correctly or sense the throw coming in time.
|
On December 19 2010 05:47 JayDee_ wrote: SC2 is not the type of game where the better player wins every time. It's still in its infancy so I think it'll be a while before we have a true bonjwa. If you want a game where the better player always wins, try Quake Live. It requires a lot of mousing/strategic skill. The question is not whether the best player will win always, but rather they will win a majority of the time, and that skill is able to generally overcome luck and build order advantages, as was the case in starcraft broodwar. Personally, I'm not convinced this is true in sc2. We'll have to see. (anyone notice the lack of repeats in the GSL?, maybe an indicator, though the sample size is small.)
|
some thoughts
Look at battlefield positioning alone. Difference landscape and unit positioning can lead to drastically different battle outcomes, especially if you play Zerg.
A single hand of poker doesn't reward the best player everytime, but over time, the best are rewarded, Same with SC2
|
Well in relation to SF, there's a LOT more different factors going into the game. Anyone at a higher skill level can take games off of anyone, no one is ever going to have 100% win rates. From IdrA's statement "Hasn't earned blah blah", I believe that's a blatantly ignorant idea to toss out. Sure X person is able to do X strategy very well whereas everyone sees X strategy to be extremely cheesy and easy to beat but it takes some form of skill to do X strategy very well. Sure he may not have the highest overall skill but if he is good enough at X strategy and spent so much amount of time perfecting X strategy, I don't think he isn't entitled to win what he has.
This sort of bounces to the public apology that (Rain I think it was?) made and how SotG members reacted to it. "Sorry I did what it takes to win blahhhh" quoting Sean. So if one ranom person on the ladder has been hard at practice doing X strategy and manages to take... even a whole series vs FruitDealer, NesTea, or any other high level solid players, that doesn't mean that they don't deserve their win, they have done what it takes to win so there is never going to be an untouchable player. Not sure if this is on topic but that's what I have to say about that, I guess.
|
On December 19 2010 05:52 Avril_Lavigne wrote: if a single baneling can kill 8 marines at a time, then the marine is not broken. Idra is just a pathetic QQer and cries about everything, and I play zerg too. This might be true in the bronze league your playing where terran actually JUST a clicks into without stim. I cannot tell you how ignorant your statement is, have you ever seen proper micro O_o
|
On December 19 2010 06:25 Comeh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2010 05:47 JayDee_ wrote: SC2 is not the type of game where the better player wins every time. It's still in its infancy so I think it'll be a while before we have a true bonjwa. If you want a game where the better player always wins, try Quake Live. It requires a lot of mousing/strategic skill. The question is not whether the best player will win always, but rather they will win a majority of the time, and that skill is able to generally overcome luck and build order advantages, as was the case in starcraft broodwar. Personally, I'm not convinced this is true in sc2. We'll have to see. (anyone notice the lack of repeats in the GSL?, maybe an indicator, though the sample size is small.) GSL Rankings
The good players are playing consistently. There is just not any one player that is clearly better than the rest. Maybe there will be at some point in the future. Maybe there will be 8 players who are consistently winning tournaments. We can't know until it happens. But to say that the good players aren't winning consistently is just not true.
Out of the top 32 players, only LiveForever, Jinro, sSKS, and NaDa have participated in just one gsl tournament. JookTo is ranked 32 and has once been in the Ro32 and twice in the Ro64. That means that except for the four players I mentioned earlier, the other top 32 players have all had to consistently place higher than just Ro64.
I think all we can infer from this is that right now, there is no one best player...
|
the marine IS broken. something so low down the tech tree should not be so unbelievably versatile and upgradable. terran in general has to work half as hard for their wins (i am a random player btw).
the race is broken, and far too comprehensive for higher level play. toss and zerg require an extremely specific unit composition in order to combat their opponent. terran has a wide range of choices. that just is not right.
to quote idra
"i would play terran but i have self respect"
|
On December 18 2010 22:41 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: skill is defined by being able to win games. winning games is skill.
Since he brought up Street Fighter, this is a significantly untrue statement. Daigo (one of the best ever at SSF2T) could lose in SSF2T to a much less skilled Akuma player. But that's because Akuma breaks the game. So the community, since there are no patch releases, has to "nerf" the game themselves and ban Akuma. In Japan there is a softban, anyone that could compete at the highest level never plays Akuma anyways, and in America it's a softban.
Point is, winning games isn't the only deciding factor of what skill is. A player could be really skilled mechanically, but lose on a build order counter. No denying Flash deserved every tournament he won, but he has lost in upsets before due to build order counters.
I think I'm a little disgusted by the disdain for people that win by doing a build order counter, or properly strategizing how to play the set. TSLRain played very smart in his match against Nestea. He knows Nestea is greedy, so he exploited that greed with 2 rax marine plus SCV. If he didn't, he wouldn't have stood a chance. But then isn't a slippery slope to say that a minor poke to the front of a zerg's base to force zerglings, and then retreating, is some broken cheesy no-skill tactic?
Fact is, people commonly misappropriate their grudges. Idra is a great example, highly skilled, he could just be gracious for the skills he has and all the practice that went into honing them. But instead he gets frustrated at everyone that decides to counter how he ALWAYS plays, rages at them on the internet, revels in being the "bad guy". That's his choice, but let it be known that the long-term champions of SC have all been relatively well-mannered, humble players. Definitely not the personality of Idra, that's for sure.
|
All I know is it's pretty fucking random.
|
So just a simple addition to the discussion since my initial questions have been well mined at this point:
We seem to have established that the state of things is to be expected, based both upon the win percentages established by BW, and on the idea that a limited information game will always have a higher degree of volatility and built in "randomness". A great majority of you feel this is all natural and that a degree of it will work itself out os the years go by and the game gets figured out. Great.
Going hand in hand with this is the notion that you all largley share that the moaning in the forums as well as the opinions of some pros such as IdrA, iNcontrol, Artosis and others is mostly baseless. Most of you seem to believe that despite their experience, and the likely fact that they understand as you do, that there is a degree of built in variation and that the game is still young, they are more or less over-reacting, whining or otherwise QQing. This plays in to my earlier example of American Football.
The players aren't sages, they are people. They can, and will deride fellow players whose methods they have issue with regardless of whether its valid or fair. I am not calling this a bad conclusion. Quite to the contrary, some people feel this kind of competition, trash talk and derisiveness is an important element to making esports compelling entertainment in a similar way as traditional sports.
So my question in light of this fact is, who ARE the sages? Who are the objective keepers of peace? the voices of reason who look into the camera and tell us who is just being a big baby and who is speaking the truth? In traditional sports it would be analysts, tv commentators and such. But our esport is so young, even with BW considered, that the people in those roles are also more or less still players caught up in the thick of things.
Someone has to be the voice of reason. If I am to understand the feedback here, even respected pros like IdrA, Artosis and iNcontrol don't qualify as authorities on the matter of what is and isn't good for the game. So who guides the player base then? The pro team coaches? The forum users? The players themselves? It's clear there is a pretty unhealthy divide in both the fanbase and player base about what "skill" is and what it means to "deserve" a win and how the game is "supposed" to be played. This doesn't seem very healthy for the game's future. Who, if anyone at all, is going to be responsible for resolving this growing rift if it's not going to be respected pro players?
|
Musoeun Show nested quote +On December 19 2010 06:45 TENTHST wrote: the marine IS broken. something so low down the tech tree should not be so unbelievably versatile and upgradable. terran in general has to work half as hard for their wins (i am a random player btw).
the race is broken, and far too comprehensive for higher level play. toss and zerg require an extremely specific unit composition in order to combat their opponent. terran has a wide range of choices. that just is not right.
to quote idra
"i would play terran but i have self respect" Which is, you know, why top Terrans haven't managed to win a final yet despite making three of them.
EDIT: Sorry, this wasn't a good post. There are several things wrong with your statements, but let's be a little more logical about refuting them.
First, "The Marine is broken" can hardly be determined yet - see all the comments about only six months of play. Second, if you want versatile, essential, insanely upgradeable, and a huge problem to deal with, what about the zergling in BW? Though of course it wasn't anti-air as well. Additionally, the only thing the marine has in SC2 it didn't in BW is the combat shield, and I refused to believe a few extra HP are the difference between "can't use in late-game TvP and TvT" and "broken".
As for Terran having a "wide range of choices", this flies in the face of your contention about the marine. If the marine is broken, Terran should go all marine all the time and be unstoppable, but this isn't true - even the player best known for doing this lost. I found I had more to say, but it would just derail the topic - which is overall "best players", not race balance - further.
|
|
|
|