How i see sc2
Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:53 PM
Posted 26 May 2012 - 11:46 PM
But Sc2 as a game - and I do not want to justify the state of the game/art - requires specific standards which arrange a wider spectrum of players competing at top level (still quite demanding to get there tho) and an up and down of skill level within one player. There wont be a Flash dominating the scene for ages.
And seriously, this is a hugh aspect why this game will never be a serious job or sport. Luckily.
I just care about good matches played in tournaments. Who is winning and why he is winning doesnt matter for me. Its nice to see some underdogs mixing up the pro scene but its also nice seeing some koreans smashing through tons of foreigner every tournament or foreigner participating in the GSL.
The game will never be like BW and its kinda sad. BW depicts that you can dominate the scene with hard work. Sc2 depicts that you can achieve a few good tournament results with hard work, but only for 3 months.
Maybe the game needs to develop more, dunno.
Posted 27 May 2012 - 02:04 AM
2012-05-27 00:46, Speedle wrote:
By comparing sc2 with bw it is obvious that the sequel brings more "upsets" or rather unexpecting results. BW was primarily decided by skill, Sc2 by Timings and decision making, makes it more vulnerable in terms of "worse" players beating "better" ones.
How can good players have bad timings and decision making? Good players have skill, skill is timings, decisions, micro/macro etc?
If a "bad" player beats a "good" player with a timing, how good is that "good" player.
Posted 27 May 2012 - 09:50 AM
Guess it was kinda unlucky to use the word skill.
I meant you have to rely way more on macro mechanics, micro and multitasking, while in sc2 other skills are more required since macro and micro was eased a lot.
Such things as timings and decision-making. You cannot negate the fact, that macro is a lot easier and battles - beside little micro opportunities - are almost determined. I.e. the discussion about PvT late game.
The requirements just focused more on other things, which make the game more easy to handle but harder to master.
In fact, I guess even Kespa has this opinion, although they colored their statement a bit more.
Moreover, I set bad and good in inverted commas to relativize the terms. Bad player as a player being able to compete in highest level at a certain point of time but lacks for some important aspects of the game.
Good players as players that proven that they are top tier for a certain amount of time.
I guess Red Bull is quite a good example. Illusion had an amazing performance against violet and ganzi yesterday, but anyway he's obviously not near of winning an important title. While violet did it already in the last tournament and ganzi is a consistent participant in GSL, where Illusion certainly wont stand a chance.
Posted 27 May 2012 - 11:49 PM
in bw there was no way!(no way!), that lets say c- player beats a- player
while in sc2 u got a lucky get away (cheese or just a bad fight )
and u falll vs lower player.
This can be good and bad in the same time(and i think this is our
only hope vs old bw pros)
Posted 28 May 2012 - 09:56 AM
In this world there is no equal skill level and an Code S player might still lose to a player who hasn't won a single GSL match because of a bad day. But please realize that all players don't have the ability to play consistently and so they might win against these "favorite players" once or twice, but they can never reach a consistent level of play.
Posted 02 June 2012 - 03:46 AM
And get me annoyed about this, everytime some random player get a win
against a way better player. That don't happen very often in bw.
Thats sad : / thats why i didn't like sc2 that much.
Posted 02 June 2012 - 04:59 AM
I do agree with the OP when he says it's sometimes random though.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users