|
On March 08 2011 06:06 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 05:55 infinity2k9 wrote:
This is the other obvious reply... someone trying to point out the game is more strategical based. But then your example is a BW game.. remember this is a sequel and a LOT of potential strategies have been thought of ages ago anyway. Not everyone can innovate. So what example is there, strategical or mechanical, that is impressive in SC2 in comparison to BW? Cause i just see re-thinking of strategy that people thought of years ago, and re-implementations of old ideas. At the end of the day something like that is hardly even a WOW moment usually, like doing a clever fake such as making your cyber core spin to fake upgrade. Thats cerebral but spectator wise its not exactly exciting. unsure what you are trying to say with this paragraph of nonsese and tired arguments but you know whatever i'll let the elitists be and go back to playing my game that is an equal to BW in potential.
Its not nonsense. What he is saying is that SC2 probably won't have a depth that just randomly comes into the game after it being played for more than a year. The players that played SC2 had already played BW or WC3 and they are not some noobs with no strategical understanding. Most, if not all of the strategies in SC2 are probably already discovered.
|
There is no point even saying anything to you because you are clearly just going to ignore it, and since you know don't even know what it means to put things in relative terms and thought that my statement about boxers game was an example and not an attempt to relate the kind of plays in sc2 to a play in sc1.
so i'm not going to respond to the obvious trolling and move on with my life knowing you are incorrect. and that BW and SC2 are both amazing games that are equal.
Also: perhaps you need to watch a certain text to movie about how starcraft's easier mechanics will ruin the competitive warcraft 2 scene and warcraft 2 will be in fact MUCH better.
MBS before MBS. 
|
On March 08 2011 06:18 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 06:06 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 08 2011 05:55 infinity2k9 wrote:
This is the other obvious reply... someone trying to point out the game is more strategical based. But then your example is a BW game.. remember this is a sequel and a LOT of potential strategies have been thought of ages ago anyway. Not everyone can innovate. So what example is there, strategical or mechanical, that is impressive in SC2 in comparison to BW? Cause i just see re-thinking of strategy that people thought of years ago, and re-implementations of old ideas. At the end of the day something like that is hardly even a WOW moment usually, like doing a clever fake such as making your cyber core spin to fake upgrade. Thats cerebral but spectator wise its not exactly exciting. unsure what you are trying to say with this paragraph of nonsese and tired arguments but you know whatever i'll let the elitists be and go back to playing my game that is an equal to BW in potential. Its not nonsense. What he is saying is that SC2 probably won't have a depth that just randomly comes into the game after it being played for more than a year. The players that played SC2 had already played BW or WC3 and they are not some noobs with no strategical understanding. Most, if not all of the strategies in SC2 are probably already discovered.
i agree with this
sc2 has evolved at an extremely rapid pace. it left the vehicle on it's feet and sprinted to the finish line. im not sure theres much "evolution" left.
|
On March 08 2011 06:18 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 06:06 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 08 2011 05:55 infinity2k9 wrote:
This is the other obvious reply... someone trying to point out the game is more strategical based. But then your example is a BW game.. remember this is a sequel and a LOT of potential strategies have been thought of ages ago anyway. Not everyone can innovate. So what example is there, strategical or mechanical, that is impressive in SC2 in comparison to BW? Cause i just see re-thinking of strategy that people thought of years ago, and re-implementations of old ideas. At the end of the day something like that is hardly even a WOW moment usually, like doing a clever fake such as making your cyber core spin to fake upgrade. Thats cerebral but spectator wise its not exactly exciting. unsure what you are trying to say with this paragraph of nonsese and tired arguments but you know whatever i'll let the elitists be and go back to playing my game that is an equal to BW in potential. Its not nonsense. What he is saying is that SC2 probably won't have a depth that just randomly comes into the game after it being played for more than a year. The players that played SC2 had already played BW or WC3 and they are not some noobs with no strategical understanding. Most, if not all of the strategies in SC2 are probably already discovered.
I'll probably need a quote from a top player to confirm that that is true.
Pros are still tweaking their build orders. Maps are still developing, and new maps will probably affect the viability of many strategies in the competitive scene. Certain units are completely underused despite their vast potential (like Reapers and Carriers).
Then again, I'll just stick with my opinion that SC2 is currently unfinished until the last patch of the last expansion is released.
|
Of course we can't see the potential. If you or I saw it, then everyone else would see it as well, and it would already be known, used and abused. You can't be serious if that's where your argument is going.
I don't care which way Starcraft is going. It's a game, even if it's fun or frustrating to play, boring or interesting to watch. You'd be naive to believe that we're on the frontier of breaking through into mainstream society. While I would like it to go as far in North America as its predecessor did in Korea, you must realize these things don't just happen because it's the "next generation" of Brood War. This is a game. I would like to emphasize that.
If you don't see the value or fun in Starcraft 2, then realize that it's your opinion, not fact. And realize that a game changes. Blizzard wants to milk this cash cow as much as possible, so don't think they are ignorant as to what they need to do. Most of the hate propaganda on the site does not help your opinion of them. They aren't here to just watch it fail miserably. It wouldn't be in their best interests, especially after Kespa.
Finally, stop comparing the two games. It's a completely different game in a completely different direction. And it requires a completely different skill set and outlook. The strategies and ideas that evolved in that game aren't necessarily going to evolve the same way. Meaning stop talking about these fanciful unit engagements and dances like they're the final solution to everything. I don't know what will come. Something new, or something old. But I do know that when, and if, it comes, it'll come. But only if you're dedicated to finding that next step, similar to what other progamers do, instead of sitting here talking about balance and how the games will never replace each other.
Life goes on, and so should you. If Brood War becomes extinct (unlikely), then move on to Starcraft 2 or whatever comes up next. If Starcraft 2 turns out to be a total dud, then go back to Brood War or whatever is next as well. But it is much too early for you to make this decision now.
And don't talk about your clairvoyance about this situation in 5 years.
|
@Torpedo.Vegas
I'm going to sleep now, so I'll address your post tomorrow.
I just wanted to explain what people mean by mobility. It's not necessarily the units being fast. It's that fact that in BW there were some army compositions (mainly in all Terran MUs, but also PvZ, I'd say) that you had to deploy in order to unleash their true potential. Siege Tanks, Spider Mines, Depots blocking the way, Lurkers, etc.
On top of that, there were other army compositions that relied on the way you attacked, instead of "does my unit composition counter his perfectly?" type of thing.
SC2 has very little of that. It's mostly just ball vs. ball, unit A counter unit B. There are some expections, such as Terran slow pushing with MMTank force with Turrets against Zerg on maps like Shakuras, and Zerg countering with Baneling bombs and such, but that's exactly that - an exception. Things like that actually make me want to play SC2. But then I remember that it also has many units that make that sort of play infeasible in most MUs - Marauders and Immortals mostly, but also Chargelots, Blink Stalkers, etc.
In BW you really had to outplay your opponent on the field (use on-army drops, flank, sandwich, cut reinforcements, distract with another attack, etc.). In sc2 - not so much. You usually just need the right units (which is why I hate the hard counter system you see in sc2).
Imo, SC2 needs WAY more of that (thing liek slow pusing and Baneling bombs I described). This is part of what made BW so good, and its sequel is missing it.
|
On March 08 2011 06:25 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 06:18 etheovermind wrote:On March 08 2011 06:06 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 08 2011 05:55 infinity2k9 wrote:
This is the other obvious reply... someone trying to point out the game is more strategical based. But then your example is a BW game.. remember this is a sequel and a LOT of potential strategies have been thought of ages ago anyway. Not everyone can innovate. So what example is there, strategical or mechanical, that is impressive in SC2 in comparison to BW? Cause i just see re-thinking of strategy that people thought of years ago, and re-implementations of old ideas. At the end of the day something like that is hardly even a WOW moment usually, like doing a clever fake such as making your cyber core spin to fake upgrade. Thats cerebral but spectator wise its not exactly exciting. unsure what you are trying to say with this paragraph of nonsese and tired arguments but you know whatever i'll let the elitists be and go back to playing my game that is an equal to BW in potential. Its not nonsense. What he is saying is that SC2 probably won't have a depth that just randomly comes into the game after it being played for more than a year. The players that played SC2 had already played BW or WC3 and they are not some noobs with no strategical understanding. Most, if not all of the strategies in SC2 are probably already discovered. I'll probably need a quote from a top player to confirm that that is true. Pros are still tweaking their build orders. Maps are still developing, and new maps will probably affect the viability of many strategies in the competitive scene. Certain units are completely underused despite their vast potential (like Reapers and Carriers). Then again, I'll just stick with my opinion that SC2 is currently unfinished until the last patch of the last expansion is released.
If you know for a fact that carriers and reapers have greater potential, than why don't YOU use them? You can't just assume a unit has more potential than people are currently aware of.
|
On March 08 2011 06:21 MavercK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 06:18 etheovermind wrote:On March 08 2011 06:06 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 08 2011 05:55 infinity2k9 wrote:
This is the other obvious reply... someone trying to point out the game is more strategical based. But then your example is a BW game.. remember this is a sequel and a LOT of potential strategies have been thought of ages ago anyway. Not everyone can innovate. So what example is there, strategical or mechanical, that is impressive in SC2 in comparison to BW? Cause i just see re-thinking of strategy that people thought of years ago, and re-implementations of old ideas. At the end of the day something like that is hardly even a WOW moment usually, like doing a clever fake such as making your cyber core spin to fake upgrade. Thats cerebral but spectator wise its not exactly exciting. unsure what you are trying to say with this paragraph of nonsese and tired arguments but you know whatever i'll let the elitists be and go back to playing my game that is an equal to BW in potential. Its not nonsense. What he is saying is that SC2 probably won't have a depth that just randomly comes into the game after it being played for more than a year. The players that played SC2 had already played BW or WC3 and they are not some noobs with no strategical understanding. Most, if not all of the strategies in SC2 are probably already discovered. i agree with this sc2 has evolved at an extremely rapid pace. it left the vehicle on it's feet and sprinted to the finish line. im not sure theres much "evolution" left.
How can you say that the game cannot evolve from where it is at now? There are two more expansions which i'm sure will add more units, change existing ones, and dozens of new strategies will blossom from that.
SC2 isn't completely figured out, and is nowhere near that point.
|
United States238 Posts
SC2 can't have same level of "outplay" and "amazing micro" because we're still using bunch of cramped maps with cramped battlefield. Wait till SC2 tournaments all use large custom maps with open battlefields with strategic chokes.
|
It'll be interesting when these leagues and tourneys have to deal with Blizzard's whims more. BW was at least set in stone; SCII can change at any time.
|
On March 08 2011 06:33 Selith wrote:
SC2 can't have same level of "outplay" and "amazing micro" because we're still using bunch of cramped maps with cramped battlefield. Wait till SC2 tournaments all use large custom maps with open battlefields with strategic chokes.
Well as long as Blizzard is in control of the only ladder... (though i heard they will try to use some gsl maps soon so thats a step in the right direction)
|
On March 08 2011 06:32 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 06:25 eviltomahawk wrote:On March 08 2011 06:18 etheovermind wrote:On March 08 2011 06:06 PrinceXizor wrote:On March 08 2011 05:55 infinity2k9 wrote:
This is the other obvious reply... someone trying to point out the game is more strategical based. But then your example is a BW game.. remember this is a sequel and a LOT of potential strategies have been thought of ages ago anyway. Not everyone can innovate. So what example is there, strategical or mechanical, that is impressive in SC2 in comparison to BW? Cause i just see re-thinking of strategy that people thought of years ago, and re-implementations of old ideas. At the end of the day something like that is hardly even a WOW moment usually, like doing a clever fake such as making your cyber core spin to fake upgrade. Thats cerebral but spectator wise its not exactly exciting. unsure what you are trying to say with this paragraph of nonsese and tired arguments but you know whatever i'll let the elitists be and go back to playing my game that is an equal to BW in potential. Its not nonsense. What he is saying is that SC2 probably won't have a depth that just randomly comes into the game after it being played for more than a year. The players that played SC2 had already played BW or WC3 and they are not some noobs with no strategical understanding. Most, if not all of the strategies in SC2 are probably already discovered. I'll probably need a quote from a top player to confirm that that is true. Pros are still tweaking their build orders. Maps are still developing, and new maps will probably affect the viability of many strategies in the competitive scene. Certain units are completely underused despite their vast potential (like Reapers and Carriers). Then again, I'll just stick with my opinion that SC2 is currently unfinished until the last patch of the last expansion is released. If you know for a fact that carriers and reapers have greater potential, than why don't YOU use them? You can't just assume a unit has more potential than people are currently aware of.
I currently lack the basic mechanics and fundamentals to implement Carriers or Reapers or any other fancy unit into a successful build ATM. Day9 has often commented on how powerful and underused Carriers are. There is currently a discussion in the dreaded SC2 strat section about the potential of Reaper drops, and in that thread, Drewbie himself had stated that Reaper drops can be quite effective given the situation.
Of course, the units and builds that are used are all heavily map dependent in both SC2 and BW. One simply can't go 3 stargate Carrier or go straight to mech TvZ on every BW map. Likewise, the evolving map pool for the SC2 competitive scene will only prompt the theorycrafting of many more builds that have yet to see the light of day.
Then again, this thread has deviated greatly from its original purpose about the discussion of WCG 2011. I feel somewhat dirty for having contributed to the deviation.
|
Makes sense that they retire it. Before SC2 I didnt mind the poor graphics when watching BW matches, but since SC2 has come out I just can't look at BW the same anymore.
I'm sure that in a year or so the game will be pretty much all balanced and have a good selection of maps, or marines will get jetpacks and tournaments will just ban the Terran race. 
|
There is a lack of micro in SC2 and/or mechanics? As a protoss player I can't talk about other races, but even the best pro protoss players have yet to use the micro abilities to their fullest.
First of all, the basic unit control is still far from perfect. I still see phoenixes getting killed by flying over enemy things or just sitting there being killed. Second, force field control. People like MC have started showing some very good finesse in their control, someone here in TL.net made a thread that MC actually did a "Forcefield doughnut" in his game vs July, where he first trapped units with forcefield, then split them into parts/pockets so that colossus rays hit maximum number at the same time. Other players use FF to mostly split/block things in a very rough way, but lacking finesse and accuracy.
Protoss lives and dies by army positioning. If you put colossus badly so that vikings or other units can kill them easily, if you put sentries/high templar into groups so that 2-3 ghosts can EMP all of them (especially with removal of the amulet)..etc. It is very hard to control a protoss high tech army properly with all the variables, forcing enemy to fire at certain units (zealots, phoenixes/voidrays) while protecting others (colossus, templar). Oh, attacking at certain places and areas of the map gives a significant advantage to the enemy you have to think about that too.
There's of course blink that is impossible to use perfectly in bigger battles, because things go too fast. Even best players blink stalkers in rows, not invidividually, in bigger battles. Even without blink stalkers are highly mobile and microable. I can't right now think of a protoss unit that doesn't have a very high micro potential. Mothership, maybe. Carrier, maybe.
I haven't seen that many of the SC:BW games so I may be talking out of my a**, but I have a good feeling the fabled SC:BW micro is originating from the fact that is has worse UI than SC2. Thus it gives the illusion of "better mechanics", because you need to have "higher micro skills" just to get around the UI flaws, like control group limitations.
That said, I have yet to see a player that has perfected SC2 protoss micro. I believe there is potential there in SC2 mechanics that even best of the best players have yet to unlock.
SC2 is a game that rewards the better player, as long as the only potential cause of randomness, "the cointoss build order loss", can be gotten rid of. The "forcefield doughnut" (seperating units into piles for faster colossus firing) is just one example of such thing. If anything, players have complained that SC2 is "too fast" and "has too many things to do" for the game to be fair and balanced and interesting. Does that sound like lack of mechanics, or should I say, "does that sound like a low skill roof"?
|
On March 08 2011 06:20 PrinceXizor wrote:There is no point even saying anything to you because you are clearly just going to ignore it, and since you know don't even know what it means to put things in relative terms and thought that my statement about boxers game was an example and not an attempt to relate the kind of plays in sc2 to a play in sc1. so i'm not going to respond to the obvious trolling and move on with my life knowing you are incorrect. and that BW and SC2 are both amazing games that are equal. Also: perhaps you need to watch a certain text to movie about how starcraft's easier mechanics will ruin the competitive warcraft 2 scene and warcraft 2 will be in fact MUCH better. MBS before MBS.
Why are you even bothering to post if you can't come up with a single example to support your argument? Warcraft 2 is a terrible comparison cause it's got only 1 viable race for a start. Strategically it's miles apart, while BW is not miles apart from SC2.
On March 08 2011 06:25 Blisse wrote:
Of course we can't see the potential. If you or I saw it, then everyone else would see it as well, and it would already be known, used and abused. You can't be serious if that's where your argument is going.
I don't care which way Starcraft is going. It's a game, even if it's fun or frustrating to play, boring or interesting to watch. You'd be naive to believe that we're on the frontier of breaking through into mainstream society. While I would like it to go as far in North America as its predecessor did in Korea, you must realize these things don't just happen because it's the "next generation" of Brood War. This is a game. I would like to emphasize that.
If you don't see the value or fun in Starcraft 2, then realize that it's your opinion, not fact. And realize that a game changes. Blizzard wants to milk this cash cow as much as possible, so don't think they are ignorant as to what they need to do. Most of the hate propaganda on the site does not help your opinion of them. They aren't here to just watch it fail miserably. It wouldn't be in their best interests, especially after Kespa.
Finally, stop comparing the two games. It's a completely different game in a completely different direction. And it requires a completely different skill set and outlook. The strategies and ideas that evolved in that game aren't necessarily going to evolve the same way. Meaning stop talking about these fanciful unit engagements and dances like they're the final solution to everything. I don't know what will come. Something new, or something old. But I do know that when, and if, it comes, it'll come. But only if you're dedicated to finding that next step, similar to what other progamers do, instead of sitting here talking about balance and how the games will never replace each other.
Life goes on, and so should you. If Brood War becomes extinct (unlikely), then move on to Starcraft 2 or whatever comes up next. If Starcraft 2 turns out to be a total dud, then go back to Brood War or whatever is next as well. But it is much too early for you to make this decision now.
And don't talk about your clairvoyance about this situation in 5 years.
Sorry this is silly, If you can't see the potential why do you and others keep saying it's got potential... when people say that i assume they mean a similar situation to BW, where we knew back many years beforehand units such as the Defiler and Arbiter had potential. You definitely could see it coming. But it was the mechanical side of things that needed to be improved to realize the potential, whereas there's no such limitation now, so therefore it cannot have the same long term evolution, in my view.
Where did i say it's anything other than my opinion though? I gave enough reasoning for my opinions at least, surely. I don't see why we wouldn't compare them considering it's the sequel. As for the thing about the game spreading further to the mainstream i'm not sure where i implied anything of the sort, i've got no illusions as to how far this game will spread. As for comparing the two, of course we are comparing it to the first game in the series. Why wouldn't we, i mean it's directly comparable, the concepts learned in BW are going to use in SC2 and the game is very much based on the original. Even the map design with things like destructable rocks are ideas from KeSPA's maps.
I'm sticking with watching and playing Brood War and occasionally seeing how SC2 has progressed.. I care which way it's going because we are in a thread which is about a BW tournament closing and effectively ending foreign BW completely, while lawsuits continue which may basically end the rest of BW in Korea too.
On March 08 2011 06:48 Greentellon wrote:
I haven't seen that many of the SC:BW games so I may be talking out of my a**, but I have a good feeling the fabled SC:BW micro is originating from the fact that is has worse UI than SC2. Thus it gives the illusion of "better mechanics", because you need to have "higher micro skills" just to get around the UI flaws, like control group limitations.
This is a common misconception, and yes large armies were harder to micro because of 12 unit limit. But what's the UI got to do with muta/wraith micro, reaver control etc. That's simply just something lacking from the game, nothing to do with limitations or autocast.
|
This is much better than WCG not having ANY Blizzard games. I hope War3 still stays!
I don't see why it's such a big deal to consolidate all progamers to a single game. I think that it makes the community much stronger. I understand we all love Broodwar, but imagine if we had different basketball leagues playing with different rules of different eras.
|
@infinity
I think that a lot of what you said though is based on pros having a lot of time to develop those strategies. By potential in SC2 I mean, no unit design is inherently flawed such that those epic battles and multi-faceted strategies can't be done. Units need some slight tweaking, Players need to definie those tactics and most importantly we need the maps to allow these tactics to be implemented. But what I was saying was the end result, while it maybe be equally complex to perform, most likely will not be BW style combat.
@maybenexttime
The ball vs. ball thing really seems less of a gameplay mechanic and more like players are not needing to use those more elaborate tactics on such small maps. One death ball can effectively cut routes by itself. But look at games such as SanZenith versus NesTea, it wasn't death balls that won it. It was multi pronged warp prism harass combined with army positioning that did a lot of it. I think games like that are a hint of what is possible when two high level players are given the proper environment to play. Combine that with some better tweaking and increased average game sense among top tier players and those battles that require set up are indeed likely.
|
On March 08 2011 06:20 PrinceXizor wrote:There is no point even saying anything to you because you are clearly just going to ignore it, and since you know don't even know what it means to put things in relative terms and thought that my statement about boxers game was an example and not an attempt to relate the kind of plays in sc2 to a play in sc1. so i'm not going to respond to the obvious trolling and move on with my life knowing you are incorrect. and that BW and SC2 are both amazing games that are equal. Also: perhaps you need to watch a certain text to movie about how starcraft's easier mechanics will ruin the competitive warcraft 2 scene and warcraft 2 will be in fact MUCH better. MBS before MBS.
Sorry, but that's not true.
BW is more balanced than SC2, and has more depth than SC2, and that's not because of technical skill requirements, but because of units like Lurkers and Reavers, who are used for Zoning/controlling space, which is something that just doesn't exist in SC2, outside of the Terran race (and that's probably why a lot of pepole find TvT as the best mirror matchup and one of the most interesting matchups overall, since Terran has those units).
It is also true that pepole will find the better strategies faster in SC2 than they did in BW, since they have more experience.
However, you really can't compare them just like that, since BW is an expansion pack, and SC2 is still the first game, who knows what will be added to SC2 in it's following expansions, and what effect will it have on the game's balance and depth.
|
This is a common misconception, and yes large armies were harder to micro because of 12 unit limit. But what's the UI got to do with muta/wraith micro, reaver control etc. That's simply just something lacking from the game, nothing to do with limitations or autocast.
All micro is UI, he's saying that all micro is not equal. Features like limited control groups were not universally liked.
|
rip to the foreign scene of the best game ever created
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
