|
On July 25 2013 20:00 woreyour wrote:hmmm so disapointed no song with this. I read the title in a "singing" way. "What is LoV, Blizz dont hurt me, dont hurt me, No more!" tet tet tet.. (some techno tunes and shit) What is LoV? (What is LoV?) Du Du Dont hurt me, Dont hurt me, No more (no more). *drop the base* Tugs tugs tugs tugs! Anyway, who else think SC2 should bring back the only 12 units per control group, remove auto mining and rally to mineral. Add shitty AI to units, add DRAGOON AI to be exact (no need for Mamacore), Wider scale maps (probably), some shitty map design and my favorite: The reaver shooting mechanism to the current state? Well Blizzard, by all means. Lets just make it like a month long April fools event and lets hear them bitches have to say 
I wonder if its possible to do a massive retexture of BW models to fit modern resolutions. Like if Kespa managed that somehow, oh man, it would be so sick.
|
On July 25 2013 20:04 mizU wrote:
sc2 is really the only game that measures apm, i'd be curious to ask you what their eapm is and then compare that to a dota player's
why do you think that sc2 is lacking in strategic depth? how much strategy is really needed?
the fact that it is mechanically difficult spawns from the fact that it's real time, not turn based, so i think you're looking for deeper strategy in a game that inherently can only possess so many levels
chess is ridiculous if you were to compare it, but it's turn based.
The more strategy the better! Of course! And there is always speed-chess. But you know, I like marines and zealots and zerglings.
I'm starting to think I may have struck a nerve here. I have played tons of original dota and league, I am definitely not trying to shit on dota and league players.
What I really wish to see are BW games with SC2 graphics I guess. #shallow #yolo
|
im counter arguing your point, rts games can only have so much strategy
imagine a chess game where you moved each piece almost simultaneously on a 3-d plane, while your opponent was doing the same. the opening seconds would be chaotic and essentially impossible.
it's nice to wish for more strategy, but where effects compound due to the factor of the game being in real-time, if any strategy were to be added, it would be very very very minor, like with a new unit or building, something they probably already have in the making for lov
|
On July 25 2013 20:20 mizU wrote:
im counter arguing your point, rts games can only have so much strategy
imagine a chess game where you moved each piece almost simultaneously on a 3-d plane, while your opponent was doing the same. the opening seconds would be chaotic and essentially impossible.
it's nice to wish for more strategy, but where effects compound due to the factor of the game being in real-time, if any strategy were to be added, it would be very very very minor, like with a new unit or building, something they probably already have in the making for lov
Broodwar is real-time. I don't know what you're trying to tell me.
|
???
are you saying brood war has more strategical depth than sc2?
|
On July 25 2013 20:29 mizU wrote:
???
are you saying brood war has more strategical depth than sc2?
From what I've seen so far. Yes.
|
Seriouly, someone needs to make a parody song about this.
It should be like them oldschool 90s techno , euro beats probably?
The singer should have this funky wierd oh so colorful clothing with shades and curly hair. And he'd be rapping on 1 part, slow rap thats like clean and all. Like the style of the video "I got the power", Ace of base style, "dying inside" video or like "dick in a box" newer parody.
I have the tune stuck in my head (last song syndrome). *tugs tugs tugs*
|
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years)
|
Strategy wise, Sc2 has a lot of openings and strategy to offer. Say Terran, terran can go bio, mech, fast expo and all that harass and units. All of these can be used in all match ups and would still be viable. What more strategy can you want? Whereas in broodwar, if you dont open bio vs zerg your screwed or you need to open mech vs protoss or else your screwed again. Also look at PvP, nowadays it is so good with all that variety, strategy is taken to account in which build order or style is better with which maps. Zerg? well I guess they need to utilize the burrow play or be like Catz.
I just think that in SC2 games are just too fast, to easy to execute because of the large improvement to user interface, AI and pathing that people think it is a strategy problem well in fact it is not.
It is just that players are using the finer, more "standard"/meta style of playing since statistics show that massing up and making sure getting the "right" stuff (true for zerg and protoss) is a better way of playing than making small skirmishes (terran style mostly). As protoss, yes 1 strategy can outright kill you but once it fails you are most likely behind and that is also true to zerg as well. But as you can see strategies evolve an example is scarlet's ling base 14 14 play vs P, Protossess, mother ship recall presure, DT rush to standard openings and warp prism harass.
To add, my observations are people wanted to do the sure win route to win always.
With that said,
P needs them high costing units (mostly with lazers and pew pew) before they can be hard to handle. Great ball of death.
Z needs to macro up drone hard and have a unstoppable surge of units with the resource problem out of the way. Tech switch compo win!
T needs to be harassing constantly, have the advantage of early mid game mules to really cripple the enemy.
The issue could also be because some all-ins are too damn strong which makes it lame but strategy wise I think Sc2 has a lot and we just need to mature and have a great read of those to say we have reach stability. But to give my thoughts, no we dont have a problem with strategy in Sc2 that much I think.
|
On July 25 2013 20:36 mizU wrote:
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years)
SC2 doesn't have much in terms of strategy aside from builds though. BW has a great deal of positional play over SC2 which is very strategic in a similar way as occupying important squares and lines in chess. How often do you see someone in SC2 deploy a couple of units to protect a location that is not one of his own bases for an extended amount of time?
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
I was expecting a song 
|
On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically
Are you high?
On July 25 2013 16:50 plogamer wrote:
I am not saying that Starcraft 2 has no strategy at all. But that it is limited to the rough equivalent of 1v1 in a MOBA game.
So how is that a criticism of SC2? Moba's rely on strategy and teamwork as their two pillars because microing one character isn't particularly demanding. Being equally strategic to such a game is surely not a bad thing. To be honest I think SC2 encourages even more complex strategic play than dota. I'm an 80 apm masters toss on Korea and play a macro style. It's definitely not mechanics winning me games (old hands) so it must be something to do with "strategy"!
I feel people complaining about SC2 being less about strategy and more mechanics just suck at both.
On July 25 2013 21:12 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 20:36 mizU wrote:
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years) SC2 doesn't have much in terms of strategy aside from builds though.
Why post if you can't read/understand the game and have nfi what you're talking about?
|
Blizzard has no fucking clue. The only way to make SC2 right is to give it to valve or riot.
DK and DB still after 3.5 years... failing to understand what we really want.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On July 25 2013 21:33 Scarecrow wrote:Are you high?
Ever played Visage, Meepo or Lone Druid?
They're quite hard mechanically, sure the whole game isn't but there are definitely difficult aspects.
|
On July 25 2013 21:48 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 21:33 Scarecrow wrote:On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically Are you high? Ever played Visage, Meepo or Lone Druid? They're quite hard mechanically, sure the whole game isn't but there are definitely difficult aspects.
Having to control more than 1 unit must be super tough.
|
On July 25 2013 21:48 Targe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 21:33 Scarecrow wrote:On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically Are you high? Ever played Visage, Meepo or Lone Druid? They're quite hard mechanically, sure the whole game isn't but there are definitely difficult aspects.
My favourite hero is meepo. And Sc2 is definitely much more challenging than dota. Dota is hard for all the animations and small spell timings and working cohesively with your team. Sc2 is a different beast.
|
What's so strategic about moving one group of units in a deathball and clashing it against another?
I think this may be a slightly unfairly harsh and not comprehensive characterization of SC2 gameplay...
(Also there is nothing strategic about that because a deathball army is a tactical choice not a strategic one. The composition of the deathball would be the strategic part.)
|
On July 25 2013 21:12 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 20:36 mizU wrote:
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years) SC2 doesn't have much in terms of strategy aside from builds though. BW has a great deal of positional play over SC2 which is very strategic in a similar way as occupying important squares and lines in chess. How often do you see someone in SC2 deploy a couple of units to protect a location that is not one of his own bases for an extended amount of time?
Well builds are strategies.
Positional play, I think you are referring to lurkers, tanks and reavers on chokes thing? well SC2 does not have this 1 shot killing unit type. When tanks deal 50 damage or when no amount of terran can walk pass a lurker choke and the reaver, the damn reaver scarab.
the thing is that SC2 units hardly needs positoning because they ball up always as part of their pathing nature. Unlike in BW that you need to really position them correctly else they go loko (Dragoon) walk around the back doing nothing. Sc2 units especially with all range 5-6 can just ball up and shoot.
Maybe map designers can make maps with many walk ways and chokes but with the sc2 game speed it would really be hard to defend againsts zerg. And if we make big ass maps screw you if you are terran or even zerg cause protoss will just warp in and kill you outright ( warp in mechanic destroys defender advantage).
|
On July 25 2013 22:34 woreyour wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 21:12 spinesheath wrote:On July 25 2013 20:36 mizU wrote:
i dont really know what to say
bw had a huge skill ceiling because it was a such a hard game to play mechanically, but now that sc2 is easier mechanically, the top pros are there because of a higher understanding of the game, deeper strategy involvement
there's actually a way higher flexibility of plausible builds in all match-ups at the highest level of play in sc2 than there ever was in bw (except maybe at the very beginning like grrrrrrrrrr years) SC2 doesn't have much in terms of strategy aside from builds though. BW has a great deal of positional play over SC2 which is very strategic in a similar way as occupying important squares and lines in chess. How often do you see someone in SC2 deploy a couple of units to protect a location that is not one of his own bases for an extended amount of time? Well builds are strategies. Positional play, I think you are referring to lurkers, tanks and reavers on chokes thing? well SC2 does not have this 1 shot killing unit type. When tanks deal 50 damage or when no amount of terran can walk pass a lurker choke and the reaver, the damn reaver scarab. the thing is that SC2 units hardly needs positoning because they ball up always as part of their pathing nature. Unlike in BW that you need to really position them correctly else they go loko (Dragoon) walk around the back doing nothing. Sc2 units especially with all range 5-6 can just ball up and shoot. Maybe map designers can make maps with many walk ways and chokes but with the sc2 game speed it would really be hard to defend againsts zerg. And if we make big ass maps screw you if you are terran or even zerg cause protoss will just warp in and kill you outright ( warp in mechanic destroys defender advantage).
There also is dark swarm and mines. SC2 introduces a bunch of extra mobility which makes any attempts at controlling key positions foolish. Forcefields let you hold a chokepoint, but they are either impenetrable or do nothing, as opposed to BW where you can try to break fortified positions with micro (vs mines or lurkers for example) or even just a larger army.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On July 25 2013 21:51 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2013 21:48 Targe wrote:On July 25 2013 21:33 Scarecrow wrote:On July 25 2013 19:31 mizU wrote:
dota is actually pretty hard mechanically Are you high? Ever played Visage, Meepo or Lone Druid? They're quite hard mechanically, sure the whole game isn't but there are definitely difficult aspects. Having to control more than 1 unit must be super tough.
Judging by the fact I can play SC2 better than I can play any of those heroes I'd say yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
