Starcraft 2 Great Game bad Players.

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

That's why I really only like playing with friends, they play to have fun, the dicks online just play to see the win counter go up.

this..suprisingly i know a good 4-5 of the dicks..they try and lure me into playing the game but i keep telling them no and they say "wow, your bad because you don't play rts's online" and im thinking "well..i actually like to enjoy the game, not turn it into a micro management rage game at all and everyone who doesn't rush with you"

The single player is quite fun, but I only play online every now and then because of the amount of "play to win" morons that are on battle net.

see now that im sure of, but i wouldn't want to play online and stuff... if i could just buy the campaign and offline crap, then i'd be more then happy to buy that right now..but seeing as each campaign is sold seperatly for 60 freaking bucks...im not so inclined to go out and get it. because i doubt i'd play it more then a few times since its an rts..

 

[Altorin]

all of this being said, wanting to win, and wanting your team mates not to single handedly cause you to lose doesn't make them a moron.

If you're sucking, then you're ruining the game for your team mates. If I was playing a straight game, hoping for a win, and I was paired with someone who spent all their time picking flowers and I was forced to either play for both of us and/or lose, I'd be pretty pissed too.

 

[Agayek]

Yeah, some douchebag wrote a article about how the only correct way to play is to play to win using whatever tactics work.
Personally I think the point of playing is to have fun thus at every LAN party I have ever gone to there were set gentlemans rules of conduct. Those who violated the mutually agreed upon rules were simply never invited back.
However Starcraft is kind of a horrible game. The only way Zerg players can win is by the opening minutes spam. The longer a fight goes on the easier it gets for Terran and Protoss.

Not true. Zerg can definitely win late game, but they don't win in the same manner as the Toss or even the Terran. You need to scout religiously, develop hard counters for the enemy's foces, and just overwhelm them with sheer numbers. Zerg have just as many research and upgrade opportunities as the other races, they're just not applied in the same manner.

That's the thing with StarCraft (at least the first one, the jury's still out on if it applies to the sequel): all three races were/are perfectly balanced. Every race has its strengths and weaknesses, but none is an all-around better choice than either of the other two. In the end, it all comes down to player skill and experience.

 

[stormcrow5]

Stick to custom games thats where the fun is at, fuck the ranked and ladder BS games

 

[Sneaklemming]

Not true. Zerg can definitely win late game, but they don't win in the same manner as the Toss or even the Terran. You need to scout religiously, develop hard counters for the enemy's foces, and just overwhelm them with sheer numbers. Zerg have just as many research and upgrade opportunities as the other races, they're just not applied in the same manner.

That's the thing with StarCraft (at least the first one, the jury's still out on if it applies to the sequel): all three races were/are perfectly balanced. Every race has its strengths and weaknesses, but none is an all-around better choice than either of the other two. In the end, it all comes down to player skill and experience.

It's not even just that, there are "fads" of certain races, and build types, and certain kinds of rushes.

Back in the day, in Korea, terran were seen as a joke race to play as, but then one pro-gamer started to use them, and kept winning, and broke the trend.

I can see how people would get frustrated though, if they always lost in the initial rush phase. You don't need to rush early on in the game, but you have to plan to defend a rush, which costs less - so that if they rush they will have wasted some early effort that you have not - thats the only way to make it to end game things that the OP seems to be sore about not being able to have.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

Yeah, some douchebag wrote a article about how the only correct way to play is to play to win using whatever tactics work.
Personally I think the point of playing is to have fun thus at every LAN party I have ever gone to there were set gentlemans rules of conduct. Those who violated the mutually agreed upon rules were simply never invited back.
However Starcraft is kind of a horrible game. The only way Zerg players can win is by the opening minutes spam. The longer a fight goes on the easier it gets for Terran and Protoss.

Actually Zerg is the Macro race.

The longer a game goes, the more larva a Zerg gets, the more units he can produce instantly when you trade armies, the more you're screwed.

It's actually in a Zerg's best interest to turtle and mass up, unless they know for sure they can win with a baneling bust or a speedling runby.

 

[Cody211282]

That's why I really only like playing with friends, they play to have fun, the dicks online just play to see the win counter go up.

this..suprisingly i know a good 4-5 of the dicks..they try and lure me into playing the game but i keep telling them no and they say "wow, your bad because you don't play rts's online" and im thinking "well..i actually like to enjoy the game, not turn it into a micro management rage game at all and everyone who doesn't rush with you"

The single player is quite fun, but I only play online every now and then because of the amount of "play to win" morons that are on battle net.

the custom games are starting to fill with some nice classics - just for fun =P you should definitely check them out

Something tells me the first one made was a remake of "Big Game Hunters", sweet now I'm going to have to go out and look for it.

Yeah, some douchebag wrote a article about how the only correct way to play is to play to win using whatever tactics work.
Personally I think the point of playing is to have fun thus at every LAN party I have ever gone to there were set gentlemans rules of conduct. Those who violated the mutually agreed upon rules were simply never invited back.
However Starcraft is kind of a horrible game. The only way Zerg players can win is by the opening minutes spam. The longer a fight goes on the easier it gets for Terran and Protoss.

Actually Zerg is the Macro race.

The longer a game goes, the more larva a Zerg gets, the more units he can produce instantly when you trade armies, the more you're screwed.

It's actually in a Zerg's best interest to turtle and mass up, unless they know for sure they can win with a baneling bust or a speedling runby.

I think he was talking about SC1, because each hive was maxed out at 3 larva.

 

[Sneaklemming]

snip

I've no idea what big game hunter is - but I think the first ones were Tower Defence games, theres some survival games, and I saw a Dota clone earlier today - and other random stuff... you know the usual. Of course if you just want to play custom games, warcraft 3 is the game to fire up.

 

[ntw3001]

Yeah, some douchebag wrote a article about how the only correct way to play is to play to win using whatever tactics work.
Personally I think the point of playing is to have fun thus at every LAN party I have ever gone to there were set gentlemans rules of conduct. Those who violated the mutually agreed upon rules were simply never invited back.
However Starcraft is kind of a horrible game. The only way Zerg players can win is by the opening minutes spam. The longer a fight goes on the easier it gets for Terran and Protoss.

Was it David Sirlin [http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html]? That must be the most misinterpreted article of all time. The point is that looking down on players who try to win (within the rules, that is) is unproductive.

In your own personal games with friends, construct whatever ruleset you like. Ain't nothing wrong with that way of playing; the point is just that when you lose a game without your house rules, a scrub will complain that the opponent was 'cheap' or whatever, whereas a non-scrub will try to get better. If you read the article, you'll notice that he doesn't pass judgement on a person who chooses to limit the rules; he just notes that that attitude is unsuited to a competitive environment. And however you wish the game was played, when you play a game online, unless you've specified your house rules beforehand, you're in a competitive environment.

So your 'gentlemen's rules of conduct' are fine. I hope, though, that they're clearly worded. 'No attacking for five minutes' in Starcraft is fine as a house rule. 'No spawn camping' in TF2 is a rule I really dislike. It's not clear what 'spawn camping' is (it can't actually be done), so players are left with no idea exactly what this secret rule might be; only the admin gets to decide whether the rule is being broken. Nobody has any way of figuring out what another person considers 'dishonourable', which is why, playing against strangers, a person will use all the possibilities the game makes available. That's the common ground; that's the ruleset you're both using. When presented with a working game, it's not unreasonable to assume that one's opponents are playing within the same boundaries unless otherwise stated, in which case neither player is being a dick unless they break the actual rules. You can play with secret rules and decry anyone who doesn't abide by them, but the reasoning behind that standpoint is defective.

Besides, people find it fun to compete. I don't doubt that, in games where they go completely unchallenged, they don't find it any more satisfying than their victims. To find that the opponent played a boring game and lost, only because they didn't want to put up any resistance, because their secret rules didn't require them to, is disheartening in any game.

 

[Danpascooch]

I find myself in every game of Startcraft 2 been rushed, 4 team dominated 2 mins in the game or called a noob because I didn't run in with a ghost nuking everything in site, weird that I would like to actually get to a high enough level to get some upgrades and not run in with 5 guys and win the game.

If you're getting rushed, do the Starcraft 2 "Rush Defense" challenge, it teaches you how to defend against that shit.

 

[Sneaklemming]

snip

even in at the real high end of competitive certain builds or tactics are referred to as cheesy. Theyre still accepted of course, but not regarded highly.

Rushing has been around longer then starcraft and any video game. There are various 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 move rush tactics in chess, which are no less cheezy then a reaper rush =P

learn how to see them coming, and use them to your advantage.

 

[Lyri]

all of this being said, wanting to win, and wanting your team mates not to single handedly cause you to lose doesn't make them a moron.

If you're sucking, then you're ruining the game for your team mates. If I was playing a straight game, hoping for a win, and I was paired with someone who spent all their time picking flowers and I was forced to either play for both of us and/or lose, I'd be pretty pissed too.

Carrying folks isn't fun, it's fucking irritating.
So + 10 respects to you sir.

That said, if you're playing league games and complaining about being rushed then you need to realise you're in the wrong game.

 

[TerranReaper]

Getting rushed is to be expected in a game like Starcraft, although it rather confuses to me on what everyone interprets as a "rush". I've played games where I just do constant harassment by poking my marines/maruaders in and netting about 1 to 3 kills and sometimes a building if I'm lucky and that was considered to be rushing. I've also played games that lasted 20 minutes and was playing really defensively and made a timing push only to be called a "rusher". Hell, I've been called rusher for scouting with a SCV and just doing a little poke at their workers with the SCV. So what do you people consider a rush to be? I tend to interpret them as a really early move, such as attacking anytime before the 5-6 minute mark.

 

[Nouw]

Rushes are typically used in every online rts, theres always a defence to them.

And in Starcraft 2, it's bunkers, bunkers and more bunkers.

 

[Jodah]

I find playing against hard AI is about as close to what you want short of the old NR 20 games from SC. If you want to play ladder games it is win at all costs. Hard AI use some interesting strategies and build units pretty aggressively but are beatable if you do it right.

As for your rant, I do agree. I have grown to dislike 1v1 because it all comes down to harassment tactics. I don't like the idea of just suiciding units to kill the enemy worker line. Using stealth units to do it is ok, thats a valid tactic to me. Using zerglings to just run in, kill as many as possible, and die, is annoying. Maybe its just me though.

 

[TerranReaper]

I find playing against hard AI is about as close to what you want short of the old NR 20 games from SC. If you want to play ladder games it is win at all costs. Hard AI use some interesting strategies and build units pretty aggressively but are beatable if you do it right.

As for your rant, I do agree. I have grown to dislike 1v1 because it all comes down to harassment tactics. I don't like the idea of just suiciding units to kill the enemy worker line. Using stealth units to do it is ok, thats a valid tactic to me. Using zerglings to just run in, kill as many as possible, and die, is annoying. Maybe its just me though.

There is a counter for most of the rushes that occur, although it tends to involve you able to scout it out and preparing for it beforehand. But if you succeed, you will have a distinct advantage over your opponent who just wasted his time and money trying to nab an early win. Although the effectiveness of these rushes varies on your level of play. I could go into detail if you want.

 

[Jodah]

I find playing against hard AI is about as close to what you want short of the old NR 20 games from SC. If you want to play ladder games it is win at all costs. Hard AI use some interesting strategies and build units pretty aggressively but are beatable if you do it right.

As for your rant, I do agree. I have grown to dislike 1v1 because it all comes down to harassment tactics. I don't like the idea of just suiciding units to kill the enemy worker line. Using stealth units to do it is ok, thats a valid tactic to me. Using zerglings to just run in, kill as many as possible, and die, is annoying. Maybe its just me though.

There is a counter for most of the rushes that occur, although it tends to involve you able to scout it out and preparing for it beforehand. But if you succeed, you will have a distinct advantage over your opponent who just wasted his time and money trying to nab an early win. Although the effectiveness of these rushes varies on your level of play. I could go into detail if you want.

Oh, I have no problem with a normal rush. To me a normal rush is when they make a push with the objective of winning right then and there. Its when they do it with the sole purpose of killing my workers that I have a problem. They do not intend to win, they merely run past my defenses and attack my worker line, expecting to lose their entire army.

 

[YurdleTheTurtle]

I find playing against hard AI is about as close to what you want short of the old NR 20 games from SC. If you want to play ladder games it is win at all costs. Hard AI use some interesting strategies and build units pretty aggressively but are beatable if you do it right.

As for your rant, I do agree. I have grown to dislike 1v1 because it all comes down to harassment tactics. I don't like the idea of just suiciding units to kill the enemy worker line. Using stealth units to do it is ok, thats a valid tactic to me. Using zerglings to just run in, kill as many as possible, and die, is annoying. Maybe its just me though.

I never really understood these rants. It's all part of the gameplay.

Although unfortunately, I recommend avoiding 3v3 and 4v4s as people always want to do something that is considered "cheesy". 1v1 and 2v2s tend to be good.

I still don't understand why people hate rushes. This is something players have to learn to deal with. The way I see it, most early attacks are just that - early attacks that aim to deal a lot of damage. It's not like Blizzard has been lazy in preparing newcomers either - the game is filled with a lot of helpful stuff. Campaign, tutorials, challenges (there is even a Rush Defence challenge), co-op vs AI, etc.

There is a difference between "cheesy" all-in tactics and actual rushes (early attacks).

 

[Macheteswordgun]

Yeah, some douchebag wrote a article about how the only correct way to play is to play to win using whatever tactics work.
Personally I think the point of playing is to have fun thus at every LAN party I have ever gone to there were set gentlemans rules of conduct. Those who violated the mutually agreed upon rules were simply never invited back.
However Starcraft is kind of a horrible game. The only way Zerg players can win is by the opening minutes spam. The longer a fight goes on the easier it gets for Terran and Protoss.

Right 100% here the protoss for sure if i ever got into a long game with protoss its was over. But you always get zerg rush assholes who by the time i have 4 zelots have 100 zerglings in my base. or something like that. Terran are the middle ground kind of

 

[TerranReaper]

Right 100% here the protoss for sure if i ever got into a long game with protoss its was over. But you always get zerg rush assholes who by the time i have 4 zelots have 100 zerglings in my base. or something like that. Terran are the middle ground kind of

Depends how long it takes you get those 4 zealots out. The best strategy nowadays against zerg players is to typically build a pylon and the gateway at the chokepoint, so you create a narrow pathway that a single zealot can fit, and you just position that zealot on that chokepoint, set him to "Hold Position" and he should be able to hold long enough for you to get more zealots to counter.