2/12/09
1st Game - 11 Min.
(Click for clear Picture)
2nd Game - 25 Min.
3rd Game - 11 Min.
And a 2v6 computer with some terran guy.
Feb 22, 2009
Pics of the Month
Redus Vs Fafner
2/12/09
2nd Game - 25 Min.
3rd Game - 11 Min.
And a 2v6 computer with some terran guy.
2/12/09
2nd Game - 25 Min.
3rd Game - 11 Min.
And a 2v6 computer with some terran guy.
Feb 6, 2009
How Humiliating!
One of the greatest strengths of Starcraft multiplayer is perhaps it's greatest weakness - The humiliation involved in losing or being the worst player on a losing team. Everybody that plays starcraft regularly knows what it means to humiliate, everyone has that struggle as a noob. As difficult as it may be to believe, it doesn't matter if the game is a low money map, somewhat ridiculous money map (Ex. BGH) or ridiculous money map (Ex. Zero Clutter). I would go so far as to include ANY game (other than starcraft) that consists of multiple players, there's a good chance of being embarrassed or humiliated, it's just heightened in 1vs1's.
This humiliation varies from player to player but it exists nonetheless; it either drives one to get better or drop the game for a different, more noob enticing game (UMS). The regular ZeroClutter player may play 3v3 bgh and think it's ridiculously unfair, difficult and especially humiliating. A simple 5 zeolots or 10 lings would prove to be too much for them early start. It's all basically because of the poor macro control commonly known among the majority of the battle.net world. When one's macro isn't in good shape early game, even when making it 10 minutes into a game, one is already far behind from a decent player with good macro, and in the end is left to call out the worst teammate a 'fucking noob' and to 'throw away your fucking starcraft CD NOW', although the other obviously did better but was triple or double teamed while you did nothing - an all too common scenario. It's not very fun when you happen to be the first one out, but it feels great when you are the strength of your team. Even if you lose, you can blame your teammates that didn't do so well. It's wrong, I know, but it's all a part of the game. Everyone has an ego, even if you keep it all to yourself. In my zero clutter days, I would feel proud even in losing because I'd always have the most unit kills out of everyone.
One on ones are indeed interesting for a reason. Win or lose, it's all fair and square (most of the time). You lose because you didn't play well enough. I believe I'd like it more to replay a guy on even ground with me from time to time. That way it shows how I've gotten much better, out of their league (I feel smarter :-P).
Back in high school, I wrestled and played football. Losing in wrestling was always more humiliating than football obviously. A person's soul could be destroyed for losing, especially when their self worth is connected to winning or losing. Back then, I'd lose mostly due to lack of practice and will to find out moves on my own, sounds all too familiar (we had a shitty coach btw). If you don't like losing, but want to keep playing a game you enjoy, why not practice and try to get better? Why play something you have no will to get better when you have much more to learn? Who likes losing to sucky players? In wrestling (age 13), I felt an odd sense of happiness when I made a kid cry for losing. I bet that kind of thing happens in starcraft for many koreans. That thought makes me smile.
Starcraft and wrestling have both provided me with sweating and an increased heart rate (although more so in wrestling), and that's partly why I like starcraft, because I know guys are out there sweating and panicking. They don't want to be outdone. There was a progamer korean game I watched the other day and one of the players has eye twitches when something unexpected happens, it's quite amusing.
This humiliation varies from player to player but it exists nonetheless; it either drives one to get better or drop the game for a different, more noob enticing game (UMS). The regular ZeroClutter player may play 3v3 bgh and think it's ridiculously unfair, difficult and especially humiliating. A simple 5 zeolots or 10 lings would prove to be too much for them early start. It's all basically because of the poor macro control commonly known among the majority of the battle.net world. When one's macro isn't in good shape early game, even when making it 10 minutes into a game, one is already far behind from a decent player with good macro, and in the end is left to call out the worst teammate a 'fucking noob' and to 'throw away your fucking starcraft CD NOW', although the other obviously did better but was triple or double teamed while you did nothing - an all too common scenario. It's not very fun when you happen to be the first one out, but it feels great when you are the strength of your team. Even if you lose, you can blame your teammates that didn't do so well. It's wrong, I know, but it's all a part of the game. Everyone has an ego, even if you keep it all to yourself. In my zero clutter days, I would feel proud even in losing because I'd always have the most unit kills out of everyone.
One on ones are indeed interesting for a reason. Win or lose, it's all fair and square (most of the time). You lose because you didn't play well enough. I believe I'd like it more to replay a guy on even ground with me from time to time. That way it shows how I've gotten much better, out of their league (I feel smarter :-P).
Back in high school, I wrestled and played football. Losing in wrestling was always more humiliating than football obviously. A person's soul could be destroyed for losing, especially when their self worth is connected to winning or losing. Back then, I'd lose mostly due to lack of practice and will to find out moves on my own, sounds all too familiar (we had a shitty coach btw). If you don't like losing, but want to keep playing a game you enjoy, why not practice and try to get better? Why play something you have no will to get better when you have much more to learn? Who likes losing to sucky players? In wrestling (age 13), I felt an odd sense of happiness when I made a kid cry for losing. I bet that kind of thing happens in starcraft for many koreans. That thought makes me smile.
Starcraft and wrestling have both provided me with sweating and an increased heart rate (although more so in wrestling), and that's partly why I like starcraft, because I know guys are out there sweating and panicking. They don't want to be outdone. There was a progamer korean game I watched the other day and one of the players has eye twitches when something unexpected happens, it's quite amusing.
Feb 1, 2009
Pet Peeve
I've got a pet peeve. Usually buildings exit their units to the south of the buildings unless it's blocked off. This is a problem for me because depending on my positioning of the map, the marines, medics or firebats exit on the outside of the building blockade. In normal 1v1 matches a scout could result in you having more time to prepare by lifting your barracks. But on a 3v3 bgh match (this could happen on 2v2 low money maps) your unit placement can be crucial.
I would have stopped that silly attack by yellow if I were in a better position with my units together (see purple sending 9 zeolots my way). It would be great if one could control which direction out of a building a unit exits, maybe in the direction closest to a rally point.
I would have stopped that silly attack by yellow if I were in a better position with my units together (see purple sending 9 zeolots my way). It would be great if one could control which direction out of a building a unit exits, maybe in the direction closest to a rally point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
