The RTS genre is very much in a recession at the moment. I don't think we'll see WC4 for a long, long time.
Plus, the direction gaming has taken is very much toward easier games, less buttons, fewer things to manage.
Yes it's like the whole population should get dumber, like why play it, let the game play itself vs its opponent itselves. Gone are the days of micro war3 games and even SCBW...
On the one hand I would love to see the campaign but it is predictable - I think it will be smth like that last mission of the War3 Frozen Throne or also of RoC where the orcs, elves and humans united against the undead. Here the last mission where they defeat Amon will be probably ALL uniting against him like even Kerrigan's Swarm, Protoss and Jim Raynor will unite against them and end in a massive similar to 'All In' mission from WoL. - just a guess but that's what I think it will be - so predictable
Quote:
I am making this thread to share some idea's of what the 2nd exp. might bring us. For example i'm almost 100% sure one of the final mission will include all three races, teaming up in a final battle very similar to the final mission of WCIII Reign of Chaos. It will be a clash between those 3 races and the hybrids with some ultra xelnaga-demigod monster.
Even OP got the same prediction and Ididn't even read his post at first
And on the other hand like some said, better make some new Warcraft than the new SC2 expansion. The thing is a new warcraft shouldn't be War4 like new story since WoW already took that. simply a MOD or smth, like Half Life and CS or a game using the same engine as SC2, cool new models and stuff BUT THE SAME MICRO oriented game.. as war3 - not less. Or if all went for 'easier games' then fck the game industry
Yes it's like the whole population should get dumber, like why play it, let the game play itself vs its opponent itselves. Gone are the days of micro war3 games and even SCBW...
This is blatantly not true. The direction gaming has taken is very much toward more accessible games, not as much easier games. The two are (way too) often mixed up. Five to ten years ago, mastering a single game means you had to know lots and lots of details about how every single aspect in the game worked, whereas now the details are handed to you. This doesn't make the actual 'playing' any easier though - SC2's skill cap hasn't been reached in the same way that Brood War's skill cap was never reached. The objective is simply clearer and the locations for time investment are more obvious. That's not to say that a lot of sequels haven't become easier than their predecessors because they failed to improve upon the actual skill cap and removed the 'auxiliary skills' that revolved around knowing the little details of the game, but in terms of skill required there's relatively little difference.
The best and most representative example I can name here is actually World of Warcraft. People have been crying about how that game was 'dumbed down' since the Wrath of the Lich King expansion, but really - absolutely nothing has changed in terms of difficulty. Vanilla raiding was as hard as raiding is currently. It's just that more difficulty modes have been implemented and as such it is easier for everybody to raid. The amount of heroic Garrosh kills is still as low as final boss kills ever were, though. The main change is also that in Vanilla WoW there was a LOT of clutter (countless extra spells you rarely needed, weird talents, that kind of stuff) that players had to know how to sift through in order to even be effective in raids. Now that the clutter is gone and everybody has access to high tier content (even if they can't actually clear it) people are screaming about it.
Really all the clutter did was give a false sense of skill - if you could wade through a river of shit you'd be able to participate in the party on the other side, and everyone in the party thought they were awesome. Now that the river of shit is gone, more people participate in the party and elitists whine about that - even if the party's still exactly the same as it ever was.
I'm not saying this is a good thing per se; I liked the clutter in previous games because of the clutter. I liked 'studying' things that surrounded particular games I liked. With the simplification of the 10's, that is virtually gone. Do make the distinction, however.
if anything the skill cap has raised thanks to the moba subgenre. Try to learn everytihng involved within a dota 2 match. Its so fucking hardcore. Not saying i like the genre tho
I have to agree with Mozared. The concept in a nutshell is fake difficulty. Many many many games in the past employed this. Either information was presented after you needed it, or in an unclear manner. The games wasted your time by making you bruteforce through either misinformation, lack of information, poor user interface, etc. Games today let you IMMEDIATELY get to.. *Drumroll* playing, instead of spending a century and a half of meta gaming before the being remotely effective or even able to play the actual game.
Also, historically, strategy games have been less favored then tactical games, because good strategies seek to remove all choice from your opponent, and thus assure you victory. This is considered not very fun because your opponent is forced to watch you play out the game, with them unable to do anything. Also it can lead to situations where people feel they are playing a game, and doing well, when in fact, they lost 10 minutes ago due to a poor strategical choice. A fairly infamous example of this are some of the most powerful combo decks in Magic the Gathering (Like Tolarian Academy), that due to their power, usually won in the 1st 3 turns. Consequently, it made the game no fun for anyone else, since all your gameplay skill meant nothing, and your deck choice dictated your win or loss (usually loss against said combo decks).
PvP games are meant to be just that, Player vs Player, not Player A plays solitaire and declares himself winner over Player B. PvE is meant to be actually played, not go to a virtual library and study for days or weeks before you get the privilege of actually playing the game I either signed up for or paid for.
Please ok that is more easy to understand what you need to do but... SC2 mechanics are so poorly skill-based, also because battles are so fast that your army is raped in less of a second... Let me link it again...
To be honest, I think the influence of small micro-related mechanics on the actual difficulty of the game is grossly overrated. I've read and seen the comments by Lalush on this as well. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of all the different forms of micro, but three overarching things nevertheless hold true:
1. Funnily enough, most of the micro possible in Brood War came into being because of a lack of technology and wasn't intentional at all. The Muta vs. Scourge battle shown in the video you linked, for example, relies on the fact (as pointed out) that it is possible, in BW, to have multiple Mutalisks occupying the same spot without them separating (very fast). The only reason this existed back then was because things like a separation radius were too hard and/or time consuming to implement. As such, most of BW's micro was an unintentional side effect of Blizzard not being able to make the game more realistic.
2. The things described here are so narrow and detailed that really, they don't matter much. The thing is that one can look at battles in StarCraft like a simple mathematical equation: if you deal as much damage as you possibly can while avoiding as much damage as you possibly can, the outcome solely depends on macro/the units available to you. I take it you've seen that video of 1 Phoenix killing 200 supply worth of Mutalisks? That would be the skill cap of SC2 when it comes to micro. Until you see someone in a tournament controlling ALL his units like that in every single battle while still following a (mathematically) optimal macro pattern, you haven't witnessed the SC2 'skill cap'.
3. Simple point: some things BW did 'better' (when it comes to "the inherent difficulty of playing at an optimal level") than SC2, some things SC2 did better. Simple example: the tank turret turning shown in the video (13:00 min mark). The fact that in BW, Siege Tank turrets stayed locked on their target actually made micro'ing them easier in BW over SC2, where simply using the move command isn't enough to gain optimal firing and movement benefit.
In the end, while Lalush makes some very valid observations about micro in SC2, these things have very little to do with the skill cap. In fact, Lalush says exactly this himself here:
"If the title of this topic would have read: "gameplay would not be noticeably affected by Lalush's changes", I'd be inclined to agree."
He continues with what is basically the rest of my point:
"I do however think it's the #1 thing that would be noticed - on a purely superficial level - by casual viewers of all the things/issues/changes I like to propagate here on reddit."
While I'm all for changing the 'flaws' in the design he has pointed out, changing these things will likely not have a very significant (if any) impact on the actual difficulty of the game. SC2 will not suddenly become a lot harder to play effectively: it'll just be a cooler game to spectate (which is in fact why I'm a fan of the suggestion to change some of these mechanics).
I am ok with you that this wouldn't change much the Game, i mean... I don't mind too much of the gliding stuff, i am a lot more interested to autotracking turrets like tank (also immo and colossi with some nerfs), other stuffs importants is to fix the oracle by giving it a projectile and remove that STUPID mechanics of the viking that is forced to be immobile for one second between shoots.
What could change for real the Game is add stuffs like onegoal or StarBow that kill the uber hard counters and the deathballs
I am ok with you that this wouldn't change much the Game, i mean... I don't mind too much of the gliding stuff, i am a lot more interested to autotracking turrets like tank (also immo and colossi with some nerfs), other stuffs importants is to fix the oracle by giving it a projectile and remove that STUPID mechanics of the viking that is forced to be immobile for one second between shoots.
What could change for real the Game is add stuffs like onegoal or StarBow that kill the uber hard counters and the deathballs
They gave vikings stupid long range to cover up the immobilty when firing. Vikings would be way to powerful elseway
With nerf to range it could happen, i just learned patrick micro of bw on our remake, lol sounds funny, but not so crucial
I don't think the vikings will ever get that change. It is the only thing Terrans have vs Colossi. If you reduce the range they would be way to vulnerable vs Stalkers and High Templars. It would only take 2 or 3 good storms to reduce the Viking count to zero which will leave the Terran without anything to counter the Colossi.
I wonder if they will give toss something vs a terran MM Ghost Medivac Viking deathball. Most pro video's TvP I see, Templars just won't cut it anymore. Colossi are instagipped by the vikings and templars sniped.
Please ok that is more easy to understand what you need to do but... SC2 mechanics are so poorly skill-based, also because battles are so fast that your army is raped in less of a second... Let me link it again...
Little Artanis grows :3
Cool video, quite fun to see how BW is different to SCII. I can understand the reasoning to why the author of that video finds SCII less good for esports as opposed to BW. However I think what blizzard wanted to do is to make a game with more "realistic" moving units. I mean instantly turning 180 degrees like the vultures do in that video, meh... Although I can see why these, somewhat, unresponsive, SCII units make it harder for pro games to rely 100% on their skill. On the other hand, knowing that units might not respond accordingly pro players can adjust their type of play / strategy. It just an other thing they have to take in to account imo.
Anyway, I don't think changing turn rates, turret ai, etc. will be a good thing for SCII. It will be a 100% game changer. Everything is 'balanced' (I do think some things could use some more balancing, but not going in to that here) to the current game mechanics / engine.
I think the final mission will be cool, but cliched like the rest. Fun but bad writing :P
I think we will see sentries get a major overhaul, I think the mothership might get an overhaul as well.
Infestors will probably loose fungal growth, and perhaps given one that slows enemies by 50%
I think we will see Burrowed Terran units that move, like a mechanical bunker worm.
I think Zerg will get scourge back, or some kind of Baneling Mutation that allows them to fly
Honestly i dunno what to think. I Just hope after Sc2 is over they start on Warcraft 4. WoW has a shit storyline, I want to see the 4th warcraft war, or a total remake of the first and second wars.
I think the final mission will be cool, but cliched like the rest. Fun but bad writing :P
I think we will see sentries get a major overhaul, I think the mothership might get an overhaul as well.
Infestors will probably loose fungal growth, and perhaps given one that slows enemies by 50%
I think we will see Burrowed Terran units that move, like a mechanical bunker worm.
I think Zerg will get scourge back, or some kind of Baneling Mutation that allows them to fly
Honestly i dunno what to think. I Just hope after Sc2 is over they start on Warcraft 4. WoW has a shit storyline, I want to see the 4th warcraft war, or a total remake of the first and second wars.
Wow raped the story line of WC, true story.
However I would be so in a remake of sc 1 and 2. And while they are at it the might actually throw in 3 with a new engine aswell. Or atleast upgraded version. I never played wc 1 and 2 because they look so ugly and when those games were a hit, we didnt have good computers at home
Hackneyed and cliche dialog.
The Terran Dominion still shows no evidence of being destroyed in previous games (their disastrous military defeats in BW and WoL were utterly ignored).
Protoss continue looking like incompetent weaklings. Any victories we have will just be attributed to Blizzard's "player-character always wins" syndrome.
Artifact prophecy wankery magic instead of intelligent sci-fi.
It's hilarious how one of the greatest manipulators and villains in all of SC was turned into a fool and went out like a chump, to the point that everybody now refuses to admit it was even the same character. :P
(Metzen confirmed Narud was Duran last BlizzCon).
Agree 100% with this.
Duran was brilliant in BW, now Narud is a total moron and incompetent buffoon enemy.
Ditto for Infested Kerrigan - manipulative and cunning in BW, incompetent and wisecracking in WoL.
BW had a really good story, I totally loved that. WoL/HotS are just a joke. Pretty much on the same infantile, disgraceful level as Diablo 3.
My compliments on specifying, I never cared which of the two it is 'more accessible' or 'easier', I could agree it is 'more accessible'.
I am just comparing it towards Warcraft III as a game, as SCBW did have actually lacking controls (and was probably the hardest of the 3 RTS). I am trying to be objective by saying that SC2 is easier than War3 - for me personally it is harder because since War3 I made my wins even vs stronger players relying purely on micro than expands. (I was starting to get good into the game and played tournaments there shortly before I left it). My macro to this day isn't very good, some lowers do better macro than me, and this is what is harder for me.
The reason why I consider it is easier is because you only have to learn to build workers and bio balls and then you can a move, you may not even need to micro - true story. Ofc SC2 is a macro game than micro but somehow the fact that now, 3 years after the game is released everybody can do that... In War3 from 2004 to 2010 you had the advantage of the stronger player than those who were newer to the game. In SC2 today everybody knows to do such things, really I see it by lots of ppl.
Maybe it is indeed - MORE ACCESSIBLE, EASER TO LEARN THE BASICS, harder to master? In War3 was harder to learn the basics as the basics themselves were to learn to defend and build the right builds on the right maps, not just to build anything...
Maybe this is what I dislike - that they made everybody get this 'FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE' and heck, I see no advantage towards the rest players that I have been into RTS since early War3.. In SC2 it's like many players have learnt the game already... and I don't like that, in War3 as I said in 2010 (when I left it) there was still the difference of players.
Now even Plats and Masters play close, Masters do things a bit better but this is still such a thin line between them compared to the lines of skill existing within war3.
Yes it's like the whole population should get dumber, like why play it, let the game play itself vs its opponent itselves. Gone are the days of micro war3 games and even SCBW...
On the one hand I would love to see the campaign but it is predictable - I think it will be smth like that last mission of the War3 Frozen Throne or also of RoC where the orcs, elves and humans united against the undead. Here the last mission where they defeat Amon will be probably ALL uniting against him like even Kerrigan's Swarm, Protoss and Jim Raynor will unite against them and end in a massive similar to 'All In' mission from WoL. - just a guess but that's what I think it will be - so predictable
Even OP got the same prediction and Ididn't even read his post at first
And on the other hand like some said, better make some new Warcraft than the new SC2 expansion. The thing is a new warcraft shouldn't be War4 like new story since WoW already took that. simply a MOD or smth, like Half Life and CS or a game using the same engine as SC2, cool new models and stuff BUT THE SAME MICRO oriented game.. as war3 - not less. Or if all went for 'easier games' then fck the game industry
This is blatantly not true. The direction gaming has taken is very much toward more accessible games, not as much easier games. The two are (way too) often mixed up. Five to ten years ago, mastering a single game means you had to know lots and lots of details about how every single aspect in the game worked, whereas now the details are handed to you. This doesn't make the actual 'playing' any easier though - SC2's skill cap hasn't been reached in the same way that Brood War's skill cap was never reached. The objective is simply clearer and the locations for time investment are more obvious. That's not to say that a lot of sequels haven't become easier than their predecessors because they failed to improve upon the actual skill cap and removed the 'auxiliary skills' that revolved around knowing the little details of the game, but in terms of skill required there's relatively little difference.
The best and most representative example I can name here is actually World of Warcraft. People have been crying about how that game was 'dumbed down' since the Wrath of the Lich King expansion, but really - absolutely nothing has changed in terms of difficulty. Vanilla raiding was as hard as raiding is currently. It's just that more difficulty modes have been implemented and as such it is easier for everybody to raid. The amount of heroic Garrosh kills is still as low as final boss kills ever were, though. The main change is also that in Vanilla WoW there was a LOT of clutter (countless extra spells you rarely needed, weird talents, that kind of stuff) that players had to know how to sift through in order to even be effective in raids. Now that the clutter is gone and everybody has access to high tier content (even if they can't actually clear it) people are screaming about it.
Really all the clutter did was give a false sense of skill - if you could wade through a river of shit you'd be able to participate in the party on the other side, and everyone in the party thought they were awesome. Now that the river of shit is gone, more people participate in the party and elitists whine about that - even if the party's still exactly the same as it ever was.
I'm not saying this is a good thing per se; I liked the clutter in previous games because of the clutter. I liked 'studying' things that surrounded particular games I liked. With the simplification of the 10's, that is virtually gone. Do make the distinction, however.
if anything the skill cap has raised thanks to the moba subgenre. Try to learn everytihng involved within a dota 2 match. Its so fucking hardcore. Not saying i like the genre tho
Go play Antioch Chronicles Remastered!
Also, coming soon, Antioch Episode 3: Thoughts in Chaos!
Dont like mapster's ugly white? Try Mapster's Classic Skin!
I have to agree with Mozared. The concept in a nutshell is fake difficulty. Many many many games in the past employed this. Either information was presented after you needed it, or in an unclear manner. The games wasted your time by making you bruteforce through either misinformation, lack of information, poor user interface, etc. Games today let you IMMEDIATELY get to.. *Drumroll* playing, instead of spending a century and a half of meta gaming before the being remotely effective or even able to play the actual game.
Also, historically, strategy games have been less favored then tactical games, because good strategies seek to remove all choice from your opponent, and thus assure you victory. This is considered not very fun because your opponent is forced to watch you play out the game, with them unable to do anything. Also it can lead to situations where people feel they are playing a game, and doing well, when in fact, they lost 10 minutes ago due to a poor strategical choice. A fairly infamous example of this are some of the most powerful combo decks in Magic the Gathering (Like Tolarian Academy), that due to their power, usually won in the 1st 3 turns. Consequently, it made the game no fun for anyone else, since all your gameplay skill meant nothing, and your deck choice dictated your win or loss (usually loss against said combo decks).
PvP games are meant to be just that, Player vs Player, not Player A plays solitaire and declares himself winner over Player B. PvE is meant to be actually played, not go to a virtual library and study for days or weeks before you get the privilege of actually playing the game I either signed up for or paid for.
Please ok that is more easy to understand what you need to do but... SC2 mechanics are so poorly skill-based, also because battles are so fast that your army is raped in less of a second... Let me link it again...
@DEFILERRULEZ: Go
To be honest, I think the influence of small micro-related mechanics on the actual difficulty of the game is grossly overrated. I've read and seen the comments by Lalush on this as well. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of all the different forms of micro, but three overarching things nevertheless hold true:
1. Funnily enough, most of the micro possible in Brood War came into being because of a lack of technology and wasn't intentional at all. The Muta vs. Scourge battle shown in the video you linked, for example, relies on the fact (as pointed out) that it is possible, in BW, to have multiple Mutalisks occupying the same spot without them separating (very fast). The only reason this existed back then was because things like a separation radius were too hard and/or time consuming to implement. As such, most of BW's micro was an unintentional side effect of Blizzard not being able to make the game more realistic.
2. The things described here are so narrow and detailed that really, they don't matter much. The thing is that one can look at battles in StarCraft like a simple mathematical equation: if you deal as much damage as you possibly can while avoiding as much damage as you possibly can, the outcome solely depends on macro/the units available to you. I take it you've seen that video of 1 Phoenix killing 200 supply worth of Mutalisks? That would be the skill cap of SC2 when it comes to micro. Until you see someone in a tournament controlling ALL his units like that in every single battle while still following a (mathematically) optimal macro pattern, you haven't witnessed the SC2 'skill cap'.
3. Simple point: some things BW did 'better' (when it comes to "the inherent difficulty of playing at an optimal level") than SC2, some things SC2 did better. Simple example: the tank turret turning shown in the video (13:00 min mark). The fact that in BW, Siege Tank turrets stayed locked on their target actually made micro'ing them easier in BW over SC2, where simply using the move command isn't enough to gain optimal firing and movement benefit.
In the end, while Lalush makes some very valid observations about micro in SC2, these things have very little to do with the skill cap. In fact, Lalush says exactly this himself here:
"If the title of this topic would have read: "gameplay would not be noticeably affected by Lalush's changes", I'd be inclined to agree."
He continues with what is basically the rest of my point:
"I do however think it's the #1 thing that would be noticed - on a purely superficial level - by casual viewers of all the things/issues/changes I like to propagate here on reddit."
While I'm all for changing the 'flaws' in the design he has pointed out, changing these things will likely not have a very significant (if any) impact on the actual difficulty of the game. SC2 will not suddenly become a lot harder to play effectively: it'll just be a cooler game to spectate (which is in fact why I'm a fan of the suggestion to change some of these mechanics).
I am ok with you that this wouldn't change much the Game, i mean... I don't mind too much of the gliding stuff, i am a lot more interested to autotracking turrets like tank (also immo and colossi with some nerfs), other stuffs importants is to fix the oracle by giving it a projectile and remove that STUPID mechanics of the viking that is forced to be immobile for one second between shoots.
And the fact that should be more exciting to watch is central for sc2, is boring see deathballs vs deathballs
They gave vikings stupid long range to cover up the immobilty when firing. Vikings would be way to powerful elseway
With nerf to range it could happen, i just learned patrick micro of bw on our remake, lol sounds funny, but not so crucial
I don't think the vikings will ever get that change. It is the only thing Terrans have vs Colossi. If you reduce the range they would be way to vulnerable vs Stalkers and High Templars. It would only take 2 or 3 good storms to reduce the Viking count to zero which will leave the Terran without anything to counter the Colossi.
I wonder if they will give toss something vs a terran MM Ghost Medivac Viking deathball. Most pro video's TvP I see, Templars just won't cut it anymore. Colossi are instagipped by the vikings and templars sniped.
Cool video, quite fun to see how BW is different to SCII. I can understand the reasoning to why the author of that video finds SCII less good for esports as opposed to BW. However I think what blizzard wanted to do is to make a game with more "realistic" moving units. I mean instantly turning 180 degrees like the vultures do in that video, meh... Although I can see why these, somewhat, unresponsive, SCII units make it harder for pro games to rely 100% on their skill. On the other hand, knowing that units might not respond accordingly pro players can adjust their type of play / strategy. It just an other thing they have to take in to account imo.
Anyway, I don't think changing turn rates, turret ai, etc. will be a good thing for SCII. It will be a 100% game changer. Everything is 'balanced' (I do think some things could use some more balancing, but not going in to that here) to the current game mechanics / engine.
I instead think that a more skill-rewarding Game could be good, this is my opinion :)
I think the final mission will be cool, but cliched like the rest. Fun but bad writing :P
I think we will see sentries get a major overhaul, I think the mothership might get an overhaul as well.
Infestors will probably loose fungal growth, and perhaps given one that slows enemies by 50%
I think we will see Burrowed Terran units that move, like a mechanical bunker worm.
I think Zerg will get scourge back, or some kind of Baneling Mutation that allows them to fly
Honestly i dunno what to think. I Just hope after Sc2 is over they start on Warcraft 4. WoW has a shit storyline, I want to see the 4th warcraft war, or a total remake of the first and second wars.
Wow raped the story line of WC, true story.
However I would be so in a remake of sc 1 and 2. And while they are at it the might actually throw in 3 with a new engine aswell. Or atleast upgraded version. I never played wc 1 and 2 because they look so ugly and when those games were a hit, we didnt have good computers at home
Agree 100% with this.
Duran was brilliant in BW, now Narud is a total moron and incompetent buffoon enemy.
Ditto for Infested Kerrigan - manipulative and cunning in BW, incompetent and wisecracking in WoL.
BW had a really good story, I totally loved that. WoL/HotS are just a joke. Pretty much on the same infantile, disgraceful level as Diablo 3.
The WoL story was acceptable, the HotS one was awfull, the second half Of D3 story was terrible
@DEFILERRULEZ: Go
WoL story was mediocre at best, that could've been better weren't for typical patriotic/heroic dialogues and clichés like the prophecy.
My compliments on specifying, I never cared which of the two it is 'more accessible' or 'easier', I could agree it is 'more accessible'.
I am just comparing it towards Warcraft III as a game, as SCBW did have actually lacking controls (and was probably the hardest of the 3 RTS). I am trying to be objective by saying that SC2 is easier than War3 - for me personally it is harder because since War3 I made my wins even vs stronger players relying purely on micro than expands. (I was starting to get good into the game and played tournaments there shortly before I left it). My macro to this day isn't very good, some lowers do better macro than me, and this is what is harder for me.
The reason why I consider it is easier is because you only have to learn to build workers and bio balls and then you can a move, you may not even need to micro - true story. Ofc SC2 is a macro game than micro but somehow the fact that now, 3 years after the game is released everybody can do that... In War3 from 2004 to 2010 you had the advantage of the stronger player than those who were newer to the game. In SC2 today everybody knows to do such things, really I see it by lots of ppl.
Maybe it is indeed - MORE ACCESSIBLE, EASER TO LEARN THE BASICS, harder to master? In War3 was harder to learn the basics as the basics themselves were to learn to defend and build the right builds on the right maps, not just to build anything...
Maybe this is what I dislike - that they made everybody get this 'FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE' and heck, I see no advantage towards the rest players that I have been into RTS since early War3.. In SC2 it's like many players have learnt the game already... and I don't like that, in War3 as I said in 2010 (when I left it) there was still the difference of players.
Now even Plats and Masters play close, Masters do things a bit better but this is still such a thin line between them compared to the lines of skill existing within war3.