EPThttp://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34075/Interview_Making_The_Fun_Meant_Taking_Out_The_Fun_In_StarCraft_II.php
What are your opinions on this article? Im not sure what to think yet.
Dustin Browder Interview April 2011
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Miwyfe
England101 Posts
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34075/Interview_Making_The_Fun_Meant_Taking_Out_The_Fun_In_StarCraft_II.php What are your opinions on this article? Im not sure what to think yet. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19230 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=198452 | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
letian
Germany4221 Posts
The concept of SC2 is quite clear, and it does not differ that much from all other casual games that are being pumped every single day. The game is easier for understanding and playing, its fun and much better that any other rts on the market, but in comparison to old BW it lacks almost in every key aspect we would like it to be. SC2 should be a better graphic version of BW, but it would be silly to expect that. I guess I'll stick to an opinion, that it was particularly made for being widely sold and then only to be played, like Mr.Browder says, on a competition level. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
"Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans. Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open." | ||
|
lbmaian
United States689 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:19 Legatus Lanius wrote: if he cared so much about the 'sport' aspect he wouldve just stuck to broodwar and ditched this sc2 crap. this is all about cashing in on bw's success Um...duh? That's what sequels are for. You could also say that BW was cashing in on SC1's success :p | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:31 lbmaian wrote: Um...duh? That's what sequels are for. You could also say that BW was cashing in on SC1's success :p or balancing it out | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
Then there's the lack of highground advantage, defender's advantage and positional play. The lack of micro is also pretty apparent, and so is the hardcounter gameplay, very un-StarCraft-like. Not to mention the ball vs. ball gameplay and horrible maps/their ladder mappool policy, as well as the fact that they deliberately refuse to fix those aspects of gameplay that can be fixed (like micro, look up Project Micro on TL) and patch interesting micro tricks because they're conflicting with their design policy... Instead of trying to understand something as deep as BW on their own, they should've consulted some of the more knowledgable players, who have shown that their understanding of what's made BW so great and what's sc2 lacking is superior to that of blizzard designers (I'm talking about the articles on positional gameplay, spells, etc. we've had on TL). All in all, the game is OK (TvZ and TvT are actually on par with BW MUs), but it could've been so much better. I think Browder failed because he tried to appease two drastically different groups - competitive and casual players - by trying to make sc2 play the same way for both of them. He should've taken a different approach - instead of getting rid of any non-obvious features (like Muta stacking, patrol micro, mineral jumping, Void Ray micro, positional play, etc.), he should've embraced them. Casual players would be unaware of them (unless blizzard made some tutorials) and they'd keep playing the game "the simple way," while competitive players would be able to go deeper and explore other aspects of the game. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote: Found this gem comment in the source article lol. "Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans. Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open." This is factually wrong, it didn't have hundreds of patches O.o. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
So his conclusion was to get out defilers/lurkers/reavers etc and to replace them with boring units. Makes sense. Honestly, I think they did not spend enough time watching bw vods. I think that in the end, Browder watched 2 Boxer compilation, and understood that bw success was due on it being "competitive" and fast paced. That's a bit short-sighted. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:36 corumjhaelen wrote: There's not a lot of content in this interview. The idea is not to get all the fun out from the game, it's to remain both fun and competitive. So his conclusion was to get out defilers/lurkers/reavers etc and to replace them with boring units. Makes sense. Honestly, I think they did not spend enough time watching bw vods. I think that in the end, Browder watched 2 Boxer compilation, and understood that bw success was due on it being "competitive" and fast paced. That's a bit short-sighted. THIS. I don't think he actually watched more than a dozen BW VODs. You cannot seriously analyze BW and not delve the progaming scene/games, but that seems to be what he tried to do - analyze BW completely detached from the progaming aspect of it. | ||
|
lbmaian
United States689 Posts
| ||
|
orgolove
Vatican City State1650 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:48 orgolove wrote: SC2 was doomed from the start when they hired the guy responsible for the farce that is the current Command and Conquer to be their designer. Uh, Dustin Browder only worked on the C&C series up until C&C Generals and Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth. He left EA after that. He had no hand in the "current" C&C games such as C&C3, RA3, and C&C4. He was at Blizzard when those games were being developed. Plus, I think his work on RA2 and Generals was pretty decent considering that I enjoyed those games quite a bit. IMO, RA2 is the funnest RTS I've ever played even though it's not as deep as BW. In addition, this thread is an exact duplicate of another thread from the SC2 General section that cites the exact same article. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=215309 | ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote: Found this gem comment in the source article lol. "Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans. Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open." Nazgul's little brother ? | ||
|
LML
Germany1764 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote: Found this gem comment in the source article lol. "Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans. Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open." but the time was a totally different. Back in 1998 companies fought to bring out RTS games with aspects that other games didn't have to make them get ahead. Most games were only played until another company came out with a better setup for the control panel and unit control, balancing and especially competetive play wasn't the first thing that came to mind back then. Nowadays Blizzard makes it differently (unlike EA for example who pump out one bad game after the other for sells) and seeing the effort they put into this game and the experience they had, they should already need alot less time to balance everything out. | ||
|
erin[go]bragh
United States815 Posts
I mean holy shit, I tried. I watched the TSL yesterday because I wanted to support TL, but I was practically bored to tears. Ball vs. Ball fights and nothing but attack move? Am I supposed to cheer when a player selects his army hot key, presses "T", and spams the screen? I wouldn't be so hard on SC2 if BW wasn't such an amazing game. If the game was just marketed as a casual version of Broodwar that would be more fitting, but Blizzard is constantly pushing this e-sport crap and I personally find it insulting. It's like the kiddy leagues of BW. Simply put, Broodwar fans deserve better IMO. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
Ryps
Romania2740 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote: Found this gem comment in the source article lol. "Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans. Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open." Warcraft 3 is pretty old now and it aint balanced. You cant explain that  | ||
|
c3rberUs
Japan11286 Posts
In the end, Browder believes the team created a game that has fundamental similarities to traditional sports: "The reality is that the game is trying to be easy to learn, impossible to master." I believe this to be at least half-true, but not that he is lying but I think he just doesn't know it. In Broodwar, we have the classic easy to learn, impossible to master reaver drops, storms, dark swarms, emp, stasis, recall etc. It's not really easy but anyone can learn it. But as we all see, even pros can mess these things up, right? Then the other less notable ones are gol, and goon micro. These units are relatively hard to just move. Pros have fluid army movement but can still get goons dancing behind lines and stuff. Removing the micro intensive units from sc2 made it duller imo. These units are micro-intensive to be effective but the pay-off can be game winning (stork vs hiya ). The advanced pathing made the game much more newbie friendly but I think took out much of the skill needed to make units move smoothly. Less skill needed, I think takes out a lot of the competitiveness because there's not much stuff to get better in and be in awe when one sees pros play (spectating value). | ||
|
Brad`
Canada548 Posts
| ||
|
Rampager
Australia1007 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On April 25 2011 23:08 Rampager wrote: I love both games equally, obviously brood war requires far superior mechanics but both are easy to learn hard to master games. Can't everyone just <3 Some people settle for sc2 being just good, while others want it to be just as good if not better than BW. What's wrong with the latter? | ||
|
Rampager
Australia1007 Posts
On April 25 2011 23:12 maybenexttime wrote: Some people settle for sc2 being just good, while others want it to be just as good if not better than BW. What's wrong with the latter? Oh absolutely nothing is wrong with this, I got nothing against growth I just think some of the undue criticism that sc2 should've been "sc:bw HD" are dubious claims, I don't think there's any way Blizzard could justify horrible dragoon pathfinding for a game released in 2010  Hopefully with more time, and maybe an expansion or two, sc2 will become better, or atleast match BW. Until then, I need to find Sea and console him. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
| ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
Anyway thanks for sharing. | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
| ||
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:54 LML wrote: but the time was a totally different. Back in 1998 companies fought to bring out RTS games with aspects that other games didn't have to make them get ahead. Most games were only played until another company came out with a better setup for the control panel and unit control, balancing and especially competetive play wasn't the first thing that came to mind back then. Nowadays Blizzard makes it differently (unlike EA for example who pump out one bad game after the other for sells) and seeing the effort they put into this game and the experience they had, they should already need alot less time to balance everything out. Don't forget that Battle.net also played a hand in SC's success. Yeah, there were other gaming servers, but they were independently run (such as Kali, Gamespy) from the company which created the actual game. I just hope Dustin and his design team will add in some new units in the next expansion which will cater to more skillful gameplay. I also hope that they improve Battle.net 2 by adding clan support and other small things like that to bring back the feel of the first Bnet. | ||
|
FrozenSolid
Finland134 Posts
A newer player may not understand exactly how hard it is to move a squad of dragoons fluidly, and if spectators aren't aware of what's going on they are missing out on what's happening. While fluid unit movement lessens the need for good micro when moving an army, it makes for a less complicated viewing experience, which many argue, will translate to a bigger audience for the progaming scene. Broodwar features lots of engine-based limitations that do make the game much harder to play and giving it a much higher mechanical skill ceiling, but it's important to note that implementing those limitations was most likely not a premeditated choice. If mechanical difficulty was the only consideration when designing a game, units would probably all have to be controlled individually without any kind of group selecting method, hotkeys, camera controls or mini-map. We can all agree that a game like that would quickly turn out to be boring, so a game designer has to make a hard choice between what he can or cannot implement into his game based on the expectations of his target audience. Another necessity for a game to become a known e-sport is to achieve massive popularity. This is likely why Broodwar never took off in the west. The game is absolutely amazing and remains one of the best games ever made even after SC2's release, but it was never popular outside Korea when compared to games like Halo, Call of Duty, Counter-Strike, Guitar Hero and other triple A titles. These games had so many more people playing them than Broodwar because they were much easier to play, but also had the depth necessary to produce a professional scene (with the exception of maybe guitar hero, which ended up being rote-learning based). Nobody in their right mind would argue that any of those games is more complicated than Broodwar, but sheer complexity isn't what has made Counter-Strike massively popular around the world. Counter-Strike didn't feature advanced movement modes so it was actually less complicated than many games in its own genre, and a new player could take out a pro instantly with a lucky spray & pray headshot. Professionals would still overtake newer players over the course of many rounds, so the random aspect wasn't detrimental to the professional scene. Top players could still establish themselves and make a living playing the game. Therein lies another reason why SC2 was made easier to pick up and play than Broodwar. For a professional scene to develop, it needs sponsors that are interested in marketing their products specifically to that game's community. If the community in itself is larger, then sponsors will be more inclined to finance teams, tournaments, or even leagues. The sad truth in the e-sports world is that the game with the most money will be the most successful, and the game with the biggest fan base will get the money. As long as a certain criteria for difficulty and skill is upheld, it becomes irrelevant how high the game's skill ceiling is in terms of having that game become a successful e-sport. What matters is having long term consistency in results between two players of different skill level. Much of Broodwar's popularity in Korea can be attributed to the PC bang culture and holding tournaments to see who was the top player in the area. Korean e-sports evolved around Starcraft because the game was popular, not because the game was hard to play or because it was a better game than the competition (which it was by a huge margin). Those certainly contributed to its popularity, but they weren't the selling points of sponsorship deals for the players. Blizzard has clearly designed SC2 not only as a modern RTS with a powerful engine for their modding community (which created DotA on the War3 engine), but also as a game with massive potential to become popular in the west. Even in the event that the standard game itself wouldn't take off, the SC2 engine is powerful enough that the modding community could create a custom map that could become an e-sport of its own. Blizzard also promotes the game within their own huge gaming community (which remains largely WoW based) and restricts third parties from holding tournaments so they can be fully aware of SC2's popularity (which may or may not be a good thing). They are very serious about having SC2 or a community mod based on it succeed as an e-sport, and everything about the game from design to marketing seems to be fixated on that. That means having to make sacrifices and compromises in order to cater to all players. While SC2 has a lower skill ceiling than its predecessor, it can be expected that the game will evolve beyond how we understand it now if it becomes huge. Players will always find ways to innovate and gain even the smallest advantage over their opponents when there's enough money on the line. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:56 erin[go]bragh wrote: SC2 will never be a worthy e-sport successor to BW unless it basically rebuilt from the ground up. I think it's an amazing casual game, BW was simply too mechanically demanding for today's casual market to enjoy, but sports aren't meant to be easy. And from a spectator stand point, the game is just boring to watch. I find it hard to believe that he analyzed BW much at all, if he did I have no idea how he came to some of these conclusions like removing defender/high ground advantage and the exciting tech units. I mean holy shit, I tried. I watched the TSL yesterday because I wanted to support TL, but I was practically bored to tears. Ball vs. Ball fights and nothing but attack move? Am I supposed to cheer when a player selects his army hot key, presses "T", and spams the screen? I wouldn't be so hard on SC2 if BW wasn't such an amazing game. If the game was just marketed as a casual version of Broodwar that would be more fitting, but Blizzard is constantly pushing this e-sport crap and I personally find it insulting. It's like the kiddy leagues of BW. Simply put, Broodwar fans deserve better IMO. idk about you, but I just dont find someone pressing each individual factory and spamming buttons very entertaining. | ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:58 Drey wrote: Warcraft 3 is pretty old now and it aint balanced. You cant explain that Warcraft 3 had 4 races. That means 16 matchups, almost double what SC has. You balance one matchup and the others get messed up. Even then, WC3 was pretty damn close to balance. There wouldn't have been a pro scene if it weren't. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 26 2011 01:07 Roe wrote: idk about you, but I just dont find someone pressing each individual factory and spamming buttons very entertaining. i find it much more entertaining than watching the game make units for you | ||
|
sharky246
1197 Posts
^ Pressing individual factories and spamming buttons doesn't really concern the viewers in terms of entertainment. | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:36 corumjhaelen wrote: There's not a lot of content in this interview. The idea is not to get all the fun out from the game, it's to remain both fun and competitive. So his conclusion was to get out defilers/lurkers/reavers etc and to replace them with boring units. Makes sense. Honestly, I think they did not spend enough time watching bw vods. I think that in the end, Browder watched 2 Boxer compilation, and understood that bw success was due on it being "competitive" and fast paced. That's a bit short-sighted. This, although another thing that made BW such a fun sport to watch was the lack of blobs; i'm not sure how they could fix this without using BW's method which a lot of people do not like. I can understand their choice for that, what I cannot understand is why they replaced some of the most tactically diverse units in BW with sub-par units from a gameplay and observer perspective. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On April 26 2011 01:07 Roe wrote: idk about you, but I just dont find someone pressing each individual factory and spamming buttons very entertaining. I don't find that in itsefl entertaining, but what do you mean ? I agree with him. I mean I watched Boxer play, and in 2 games out of three, he maxed without doing anything. Not a singe try to outmultitask is opponent, to outmicro him, to outthink him, to do anything cute. In the third he tried something once, very late into the game. SC2 made Boxer a boring player. Even when he ws sucking in the Airforce, he would try some stuff, pulling crazy cheses or idk. But now, nothing to see. Even his games vs Fruitdealer, in TvZ which is more watchable were pretty boring. And I mean, I'm not Boxer's biggest fan, I think his play was pretty gimmicky and I dislike his habbit to bunker rush mindlessly (cf my sig...). But he often tried some crazy stuff. Now ? I'd rather see him get facestomped by YellOw in allstar game. Of course it's worse for his carrier, but on the standpoint of entertainment value... | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 26 2011 01:21 frodoguy wrote: maybe blizz decided that they will start off with something easy to understand to cater for those who do not know sc at all (wings of liberty) and then gradually make it more complex like BW in the future (heart of the swarm and legacy of the void) so those newbies who make up like 90% of the sc2 community will be abled to understand the more complex things (just my theory though). ^ Pressing individual factories and spamming buttons doesn't really concern the viewers in terms of entertainment. maybe not actually seeing it happen, but knowing that an important facet of the game such as macro is not trivialised and downplayed is pretty important. its interesting as there must be a balance between switching between your base and concentrating on everything else. i like it because it rewards multitasking and rewards people that have a talent for it, which in turn produces faster and better players | ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
SC2 has its flaws and its cool features. I would love to see Brood War with the current SC2 replay and observer features. It would be very nice to see the income and production tabs in a proleague game. It is hard to grasp what made Brood War a success from a design point of view. Of course it is easy to criticise and say it would make the game awesome if they kept _____ in the game. As the expansions roll out hopefully it molds it into a Brood War style game without having the exact same units as Brood War had in the game. As long as Proleague, Winners League, and MSL/OSL are still around I will be happy with the scene no matter what. I play both and watch both to enjoy both worlds. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On April 25 2011 23:15 Rampager wrote: Oh absolutely nothing is wrong with this, I got nothing against growth I just think some of the undue criticism that sc2 should've been "sc:bw HD" are dubious claims, I don't think there's any way Blizzard could justify horrible dragoon pathfinding for a game released in 2010 Hopefully with more time, and maybe an expansion or two, sc2 will become better, or atleast match BW. Until then, I need to find Sea and console him.Ugh, I hate it whenever dragoon pathfinding is brought up as an example of BW's micro. Why does that justify removing muta stacking, wraith stacking, moving shot and all the micro tricks in BW? Do you seriously mean they couldn't improve dragoon AI without removing all the other stuff? Overcoming dragoon AI is not even noticeable in most games. Too many SC2 units have crappy acceleration to reduce the effects of micro. Vikings have insane range but are really clunky to control compared to wraiths. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 26 2011 01:07 Roe wrote: idk about you, but I just dont find someone pressing each individual factory and spamming buttons very entertaining. While it is true that there is no way you can justify the lack of MBS save for the sake of a competitive E-sport game(it makes no sense for the casuals), it does attribute to the fact. When is anyone amazed by someones macro really in SC2? If you follow BW (I think you do judging from you posting here. Then check out the recent game with Flash vs Best, the livechat and LR thread was bursting with HOLY MACRO BATMAN THAT IS ALOT OF UNITS, due to the sheer mechanically taxing UI you get amazing moments. Chill once described it that it attributes because as a casual player, you just can not do that, only the pros are able to macro with such at such a high level. It cuts the good from the pro players, you really have the feeling that you are watching the best of the best, it attributes to the spectatorship but only if you know that it is incredibly hard to do so(watch any FPvod and you know what I am talking about). And personally, I think it is amazing when you switch to FPV for about 5s and watch a guy instantly macro his production facalities in less then a second. There is no way to justify MBS except for the sake of making the game harder(and thus more competitive and better for E-sports), and as such I do not expect Blizzard to change this, ever. However it does make BW better for spectatorship values based upon sheer macro. It is but one of the many factors which makes BW better in terms of spectatorship and as an E-sport. In the end SC2 is a game marketted for casuals(the larger majority of the consumers), where as Brood War had no such idea behind it and as a result SC2 suffers in the E-sport department as such. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 26 2011 01:53 andrewlt wrote: Ugh, I hate it whenever dragoon pathfinding is brought up as an example of BW's micro. Why does that justify removing muta stacking, wraith stacking, moving shot and all the micro tricks in BW? Do you seriously mean they couldn't improve dragoon AI without removing all the other stuff? Overcoming dragoon AI is not even noticeable in most games. Too many SC2 units have crappy acceleration to reduce the effects of micro. Vikings have insane range but are really clunky to control compared to wraiths. While it's somewhat disappointing that SC2 lacks many of the micro tricks that made BW quite awesome, I think that they may have had some good reasons for their decisions. Stacking air units just doesn't work with unlimited unit selection. Unless there are built-in tweaks to the pathing, being able to control more than 12 flyers in one stack has the potential to be extremely overpowered. Even if tweaks are possible, I think stacking is an artifact of an old engine that wouldn't transfer very well into the new engine. I imagine that engine differences may also be a reason why other micro tricks, like patrol micro, did not transfer over to SC2. Those tricks were exploits of an aged engine, and I imagine that a modern Blizzard would've patched them out if BW was still getting balance updates. However, I do agree that quite a few units just feel clunky, especially without an obvious moving shot. Nevertheless, there is a fine line between a micro trick giving a player a slight edge or being completely imbalanced at all levels. While I don't think it'll be difficult for Blizzard to tweak units to have a moving shot, it's going to be much harder for them to purposely add hidden, more intricate micro tricks into the engine in hopes of people discovering and exploiting them. Moving shot, stacking, and patrol micro were accidental discoveries of unintended engine intricacies. While it's easy to point at the stuff that's already been discovered in BW, it's difficult to purposely and artificially create hidden micro tricks that can be discovered by future players. | ||
|
valaki
Hungary2476 Posts
On April 26 2011 02:14 eviltomahawk wrote: ...being able to control more than 12 flyers in one stack has the potential to be extremely overpowered It's true however, they would be extremely fragile against aoe like infestor, archon / strom, hsm | ||
|
DuneBug
United States668 Posts
On April 26 2011 01:35 ShadeR wrote: I feel that entertainment value comes from professionals who are able to overcome hard counters with micro. Isn't it sick to watch marines which are hard counter'd by lurkers dance around and pick them off? And oh let's not even get into the loss of the reaver =[. This. Except marine/lurker has the same dynamic as marine/baneling right now. Is that why TvZ is the most interesting MU ? Banshee/marine is pretty good though. Thor/muta, not bad. But not as good as scourge science vessel. XvP is bad because of the colossus, there's just not really a good way to counter colossi with micro. Maybe some of that is forcefield's fault. But I think most people like FF. Especially sentry/gateway vs burrowed roaches is pretty cool. And templar need a buff. 80 dmg psi storm is kind of a joke without khaydarin. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On April 26 2011 02:14 eviltomahawk wrote: While it's somewhat disappointing that SC2 lacks many of the micro tricks that made BW quite awesome, I think that they may have had some good reasons for their decisions. Stacking air units just doesn't work with unlimited unit selection. Unless there are built-in tweaks to the pathing, being able to control more than 12 flyers in one stack has the potential to be extremely overpowered. Even if tweaks are possible, I think stacking is an artifact of an old engine that wouldn't transfer very well into the new engine. I imagine that engine differences may also be a reason why other micro tricks, like patrol micro, did not transfer over to SC2. Those tricks were exploits of an aged engine, and I imagine that a modern Blizzard would've patched them out if BW was still getting balance updates. However, I do agree that quite a few units just feel clunky, especially without an obvious moving shot. Nevertheless, there is a fine line between a micro trick giving a player a slight edge or being completely imbalanced at all levels. While I don't think it'll be difficult for Blizzard to tweak units to have a moving shot, it's going to be much harder for them to purposely add hidden, more intricate micro tricks into the engine in hopes of people discovering and exploiting them. Moving shot, stacking, and patrol micro were accidental discoveries of unintended engine intricacies. While it's easy to point at the stuff that's already been discovered in BW, it's difficult to purposely and artificially create hidden micro tricks that can be discovered by future players. Moving shot doesn't necessarily have to be done the same way it's done in BW. I don't even know exactly how it's done in BW, just that it's really exciting to watch and adds tactics to the game. Not only did Blizzard remove moving shot, they made it so that certain units like hellions have to come to a dead stop while shooting and then accelerate slowly after stopping. To compensate, they gave units like vikings ridiculous range. It just feels to me like a deliberate attempt to reduce micro to 1a as much as possible. The only micro that exists in SC2 is splitting units. | ||
|
space_yes
United States548 Posts
On April 26 2011 02:37 andrewlt wrote: Moving shot doesn't necessarily have to be done the same way it's done in BW. I don't even know exactly how it's done in BW, just that it's really exciting to watch and adds tactics to the game. Not only did Blizzard remove moving shot, they made it so that certain units like hellions have to come to a dead stop while shooting and then accelerate slowly after stopping. To compensate, they gave units like vikings ridiculous range. It just feels to me like a deliberate attempt to reduce micro to 1a as much as possible. The only micro that exists in SC2 is splitting units. Yeah controlling units in SC2 is like trying to micro an Oldsmobile. Part of this is the acceleration, another part is the minimum latency of bnet 2.0. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On April 26 2011 02:14 eviltomahawk wrote: While it's somewhat disappointing that SC2 lacks many of the micro tricks that made BW quite awesome, I think that they may have had some good reasons for their decisions. Stacking air units just doesn't work with unlimited unit selection. Unless there are built-in tweaks to the pathing, being able to control more than 12 flyers in one stack has the potential to be extremely overpowered. Even if tweaks are possible, I think stacking is an artifact of an old engine that wouldn't transfer very well into the new engine. I think they could easily make the ability to stack inversely proportional to how many Mutas the player has selected. After exceeding a certain number of Mutas (determined through balance experiments). They could even come up with some lore explanation for stacking so that the casuals don't whine it's unrealistic (it's a sci-fi game ffs). But that's besides the point. The key aspect that separates BW Muta micro and sc2 Muta micro is the fact that in BW one can overcome the tendency of air units to come to a halt before they attack with micro/technique. That's not possible in SC2 - Mutas decelerate and stop before they attack and have to slowly accelerate afterwards. I imagine that engine differences may also be a reason why other micro tricks, like patrol micro, did not transfer over to SC2. Those tricks were exploits of an aged engine, and I imagine that a modern Blizzard would've patched them out if BW was still getting balance updates. They wouldn't have patched them - they did - take Void Ray micro for example. This is a HUGE mistake on their part. It's akin to Quake designers getting rid of rocket jumping. ;o They should've embraced those - de facto - unintended gameplay features. However, I do agree that quite a few units just feel clunky, especially without an obvious moving shot. Nevertheless, there is a fine line between a micro trick giving a player a slight edge or being completely imbalanced at all levels. While I don't think it'll be difficult for Blizzard to tweak units to have a moving shot, it's going to be much harder for them to purposely add hidden, more intricate micro tricks into the engine in hopes of people discovering and exploiting them. Moving shot, stacking, and patrol micro were accidental discoveries of unintended engine intricacies. While it's easy to point at the stuff that's already been discovered in BW, it's difficult to purposely and artificially create hidden micro tricks that can be discovered by future players. Those techniques do not have to be hidden in any way whatsoever. Would the fact that Muta stacking and moving-shot wouldn't be be "hidden" make it any easier to master? The first step to improving sc2 micro would be not removing the already existing micro tricks such as Void Ray micro that used to be possible. The next step would be bringing back at least some of the micro techniques from BW - without hiding them. For all I care, they could even make their own tutorials explaining how to use them. They need not change the engine. It's all possible to fix even in the map editor: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=125146 | ||
|
Sephy90
United States1785 Posts
On April 26 2011 02:37 andrewlt wrote: Moving shot doesn't necessarily have to be done the same way it's done in BW. I don't even know exactly how it's done in BW, just that it's really exciting to watch and adds tactics to the game. Not only did Blizzard remove moving shot, they made it so that certain units like hellions have to come to a dead stop while shooting and then accelerate slowly after stopping. To compensate, they gave units like vikings ridiculous range. It just feels to me like a deliberate attempt to reduce micro to 1a as much as possible. The only micro that exists in SC2 is splitting units. The moving shot in BW is when you right click your unit (by chasing whatever you're attacking) and using "Attack" then immediately right clicking again to chase your enemy. The timing to do this is pretty strict because you have to input the commands very fast. By doing this it seems as if your unit is shooting without stopping at all. Units like mutalisks and wraiths could do this. The moving shot in SC2 is just right click spamming while the engine automatically attacks for you. Although the timing isn't too hard to learn in BW it still requires effort and good unit control (micro of course). | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On April 25 2011 23:08 Rampager wrote: I love both games equally, obviously brood war requires far superior mechanics but both are easy to learn hard to master games. Can't everyone just <3 If you're an A on iCCup, you have "learned" BW. If you're Jaedong/FlaSh/Bisu/St0rk/ManyotherAandSrankprogamersinKorea, then you have "mastered" it. If you're a Bronze on SC2, you have "learned" SC2. If you're an old B-team-skill-wielding retired BW player, then you have "mastered" it. I don't see the equality here. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:57 ShadeR wrote: Guys Im ahaving a laugh at how he said HUNDREDS of patches lol... wasnt there only 2 actual balance patches? and after that the game was balanced | ||
|
emucxg
Finland4559 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On April 26 2011 03:03 arb wrote: wasnt there only 2 actual balance patches? and after that the game was balanced Roughly 3-4 balance patches for SC and BW combined, I believe. | ||
|
doothegee
Korea (South)3011 Posts
No real point here, just my two cents of rambling. I would like to see Blizzard give some more credit to the actual players and people behind the scene that made BW into the great pioneer of e-sports that it is. | ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
On April 26 2011 02:58 sCCrooked wrote: If you're an A on iCCup, you have "learned" BW. If you're Jaedong/FlaSh/Bisu/St0rk/ManyotherAandSrankprogamersinKorea, then you have "mastered" it. If you're a Bronze on SC2, you have "learned" SC2. If you're an old B-team-skill-wielding retired BW player, then you have "mastered" it. I don't see the equality here. I don't see the logic of your post. Basically you are saying if you played your placement matches you are the equivlant of "A" in SC2. I don't see the equality either. Edit: Further onto it. I am sure a "old B-team-skill-wielding retired BW player" can also obtain A or higher on ICCup still. The fact is that if one of the "mastered" BW players went to SC2, then the current "mastered" players wouldn't be the "mastered" player anymore. Calling BW and SC2 mastered is a bold statement anyway. | ||
|
nepeta
1872 Posts
If you were to pay €25 + €5/month, blizz would have an incentive to aim for longevity, but the entire model of personal computer development and game sales is against it, so it's not going to happen any time soon. SC2 is not like WoW, its main attraction is pvp, which means adding content is a very limited tool to ensure customer loyalty. They need a radically different setup of income from e-sports, i.e. a HUGE increase of revenue from e-sports, to bring it on the same level as that from copy sales, period. Yeah, we at TL.net like to see gosu micro, epic low econ battles, cunning plans and meta metagames, but all the scrubs out there just want to see pretty things shoot and explode when they click and don't give a damn about units which require more than 2 clicks to operate. SC2 could have been a lot worse, from an e-sports view, try envisioning a pvp environment run like the sp campaign. Scary, isn't it? Browder/Blizz/Activision are balancing like crazy, but first and foremost they do so financially, all other objectives are secondary. Lord almighty forgive my entering this discussion, but I suppose I'm crazy enough to argue in it, and my point is its pointlessness :p | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
But anyway... I can't watch SC2 at all. There's no impressive micro and there's no real multitasking. The AI is so smart that microing might make you worse. On top of that, the loser of the big battle is an instant gg because there's no hope of coming back. One thing that makes BW impressive to watch is because when I play it, I can't perform at the level the pros do. In fact, to perform at that level, I need to put in years of practice. I don't understand how people can find SC2 more interesting to watch. You might say "Oh, I don't like watching people build units perfectly" or "Dragoon AI sucks" but those aren't problems we're dealing with as spectators. We're only watching. We don't watch people macro from their factories in 2 seconds, we only see tanks roll down the screen and wonder how they have so many units. We don't complain how hard it is to perfect blanket storm, we only know it's a rare sight when it happens and it gives us reason to cheer. Reading the interview, it makes me wonder if Browder actually called for more depth. It says the development team kept him check by cutting units that were "too complicated." | ||
|
Ideas
United States8088 Posts
it's a combination of amazing unit designs AND intense mechanical requirements, and often times they overlap with each other. the muta itself is a pretty boring unit (just look at sc2 muta) but when you combine it with unit stacking, it becomes one of the most interesting parts of brood war. it's fun (at least to me, and I think to a lot of BW fans) to control a maxed out army properly with limited unit selection, and amazing to watch. it's incredibly satisfying to have good macro and and to be able to out-produce your opponent. a lot of the mechanical stuff just wont ever be as fun in SC2 as BW (mostly army control and basic macro), but there is still potential in the expansions to make the macro mechanics more interesting and more fun (sc2 zerg probably has the most interesting/fun macro mechanics, although i feel it's still a bit shallow for what it tries to do), although I really wonder if blizzard will be able to improve the game in ways that they need to (at least, that they need to do in order to get me to play it). I feel like many things are just fundamentally wrong with the design though and will never change, and thus the game will never be fun for me: - lack of a real high ground advantage drastically decreases defender's advantage. combined with short rush distances on most blizzard maps makes "real" FEs much harder to do (by "real" FE I will arbitrarily say means expanding before gas, aka 1 RAX FE, forge FE, etc) - hard counter system is far more shallow than counters in BW. In BW the "hard" counters were just splash damage units vs light units that clump together (archons vs mutas, firebats vs zerglings). the beauty of this was that it just put extra pressure on the countered player to micro better than his opponent (IE make sure mutas are never in range of archon, splitting marines vs lurkers, etc). the hard counter system in SC2 generally just makes 1 unit do a whole lot more damage to the other unit, and there's no way of micro-ing around that (at least with interesting micro). - this doesnt fit too well with the other bullet points, but I just want to say that focus-firing is not a fun or interesting micro, and simply trying to get the biggest surface area when you attack the other guy's army is not a very fun method of army control. Im not saying that these didnt exist in some form or another in BW but they were definitely the least interesting things that happened in BW. - smart-casting forces all spells to be far less powerful and less interesting. im just going to go ahead and say that just about all spells in SC2 are pretty lame, even the ones kept from BW are less interesting because of changes. storm in BW could kill almost anything with 1 cast, but since it took so long to complete (actually it's pretty short, but like 3x longer than sc2 storm) the other player has a chance to move his units out of it and not instantly die. SC2 storm does less damage in a smaller area over a shorter time, meaning that it's not as important to dodge (although admittedly still important to try to dodge) but much harder to dodge because it's over so quick. Then you have spells like fungal growth and EMP where besides trying to spread out units in case the spell is casted (which you already would do vs storm) you just have to sort of sit there and take it. there are a lot of things that blizzard can do to make the game better, although i really doubt they will: most army compositions function in the exact same way (IE big ball of ranged units) - as many have discussed, outside of siege tanks (and forcefields sorta) there are no area-controlling units (IE no more lurkers, dark swarm, reavers, or spidermines). outside of ZvT(or rather, terrans going mech), all army compositions are extremely similar (in that they are a big ball of ranged units and some lings or zeals thrown in). hopefully the next expansion will introduce units/spells that fall into this category, as these units not only make armies look and function differently, but allow for many more play-styles as well. oh crap I gotta go for now. i'll post more later I think lol. I also wanted to talk about: -all 3 races are more mobile in SC2, making harass less viable (as well as making it much riskier to ever split up your army at all) - why games never go through different stages as well as BW games do (IE in BW ZvT, you have terran pushing out before mutas, then mutas harassing base, then terran pushing out again while zerg turtles with swarm, then ultras come out and zerg has map control, but then terran switches to mech, etc). probably a combination of yet-to-be-developed meta game, but also lack of late-game options (IE zerg hive tech is much more limited than BW, protoss just have a fucking mothership, etc) - baneling vs marine micro is way lamer than marine vs lurker micro (and also that the lurker is a far superior unit than the baneling in terms of functions, entertainment, and offering play-styles) - blizzard should consider something like "micro mechanics" (akin to the macro mechanics) to allow users more room to differentiate themselves with micro. this would not only differentiate the races more, but make the game more fun too (both to watch and to play). - how zerg has been so messed up because blizzard never gave them another unit in the beta (basically instead of adding in another unit to make zerg stronger, they just made all the existing units stronger yet they still have holes in their army (particularly in the late game)). | ||
|
Greem
730 Posts
On April 26 2011 01:21 frodoguy wrote: maybe blizz decided that they will start off with something easy to understand to cater for those who do not know sc at all (wings of liberty) and then gradually make it more complex like BW in the future (heart of the swarm and legacy of the void) so those newbies who make up like 90% of the sc2 community will be abled to understand the more complex things (just my theory though). ^ Pressing individual factories and spamming buttons doesn't really concern the viewers in terms of entertainment. After Reading FrozenSolid post i came to same conclusion, wings of liberty could be just a start to forge the community , after the comunity is there, they could really focus on making the game more complex . | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 26 2011 03:53 Greem wrote: After Reading FrozenSolid post i came to same conclusion, wings of liberty could be just a start to forge the community , after the comunity is there, they could really focus on making the game more complex . this would probably be a good business decision as well. make as many people buy it when it comes out, then down the road make sure it has e-sports to back it by making it cater to a more elite crowd that's at least what i'm hoping | ||
|
xxpack09
United States2160 Posts
On April 26 2011 01:14 KevinIX wrote: Warcraft 3 had 4 races. That means 16 matchups, almost double what SC has. You balance one matchup and the others get messed up. Even then, WC3 was pretty damn close to balance. There wouldn't have been a pro scene if it weren't. Not true. There are 4 nCr 2 non-mirrors and 4 mirrors, making 10 overall matchups SC has 3 nCr 2 non-mirrors and 3 mirrors, making 6 overall matchups | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On April 26 2011 03:29 nepeta wrote: Absolutely agreed. E-sports is a marketing tool to get more casuals and to keep the casuals playing. And hell Blizz is doing a damn good job with it.They sold out to casuals, because their business is to sell games, and there are more casuals than pros, get over it. Browder isn't paying a cent more than lip-service to e-sports, because e-sports is worth very little compared to copy sales. It is by no means useless; big tournaments generate publicity, and increase the length of attraction in a sizeable part of the buyers, but underneath the black line named "$ profit" the e-sports gains are, in my very humble opinion, peanuts. If you were to pay €25 + €5/month, blizz would have an incentive to aim for longevity, but the entire model of personal computer development and game sales is against it, so it's not going to happen any time soon. SC2 is not like WoW, its main attraction is pvp, which means adding content is a very limited tool to ensure customer loyalty. They need a radically different setup of income from e-sports, i.e. a HUGE increase of revenue from e-sports, to bring it on the same level as that from copy sales, period. Yeah, we at TL.net like to see gosu micro, epic low econ battles, cunning plans and meta metagames, but all the scrubs out there just want to see pretty things shoot and explode when they click and don't give a damn about units which require more than 2 clicks to operate. SC2 could have been a lot worse, from an e-sports view, try envisioning a pvp environment run like the sp campaign. Scary, isn't it? Browder/Blizz/Activision are balancing like crazy, but first and foremost they do so financially, all other objectives are secondary. Lord almighty forgive my entering this discussion, but I suppose I'm crazy enough to argue in it, and my point is its pointlessness :p | ||
|
qdenser
Canada133 Posts
| ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
On April 26 2011 00:56 FrozenSolid wrote: You have to remember that SC2 was also designed so that it is easy to watch and to understand. A newer player may not understand exactly how hard it is to move a squad of dragoons fluidly, and if spectators aren't aware of what's going on they are missing out on what's happening. While fluid unit movement lessens the need for good micro when moving an army, it makes for a less complicated viewing experience, which many argue, will translate to a bigger audience for the progaming scene. Broodwar features lots of engine-based limitations that do make the game much harder to play and giving it a much higher mechanical skill ceiling, but it's important to note that implementing those limitations was most likely not a premeditated choice. If mechanical difficulty was the only consideration when designing a game, units would probably all have to be controlled individually without any kind of group selecting method, hotkeys, camera controls or mini-map. We can all agree that a game like that would quickly turn out to be boring, so a game designer has to make a hard choice between what he can or cannot implement into his game based on the expectations of his target audience. Another necessity for a game to become a known e-sport is to achieve massive popularity. This is likely why Broodwar never took off in the west. The game is absolutely amazing and remains one of the best games ever made even after SC2's release, but it was never popular outside Korea when compared to games like Halo, Call of Duty, Counter-Strike, Guitar Hero and other triple A titles. These games had so many more people playing them than Broodwar because they were much easier to play, but also had the depth necessary to produce a professional scene (with the exception of maybe guitar hero, which ended up being rote-learning based). Nobody in their right mind would argue that any of those games is more complicated than Broodwar, but sheer complexity isn't what has made Counter-Strike massively popular around the world. Counter-Strike didn't feature advanced movement modes so it was actually less complicated than many games in its own genre, and a new player could take out a pro instantly with a lucky spray & pray headshot. Professionals would still overtake newer players over the course of many rounds, so the random aspect wasn't detrimental to the professional scene. Top players could still establish themselves and make a living playing the game. Therein lies another reason why SC2 was made easier to pick up and play than Broodwar. For a professional scene to develop, it needs sponsors that are interested in marketing their products specifically to that game's community. If the community in itself is larger, then sponsors will be more inclined to finance teams, tournaments, or even leagues. The sad truth in the e-sports world is that the game with the most money will be the most successful, and the game with the biggest fan base will get the money. As long as a certain criteria for difficulty and skill is upheld, it becomes irrelevant how high the game's skill ceiling is in terms of having that game become a successful e-sport. What matters is having long term consistency in results between two players of different skill level. Much of Broodwar's popularity in Korea can be attributed to the PC bang culture and holding tournaments to see who was the top player in the area. Korean e-sports evolved around Starcraft because the game was popular, not because the game was hard to play or because it was a better game than the competition (which it was by a huge margin). Those certainly contributed to its popularity, but they weren't the selling points of sponsorship deals for the players. Blizzard has clearly designed SC2 not only as a modern RTS with a powerful engine for their modding community (which created DotA on the War3 engine), but also as a game with massive potential to become popular in the west. Even in the event that the standard game itself wouldn't take off, the SC2 engine is powerful enough that the modding community could create a custom map that could become an e-sport of its own. Blizzard also promotes the game within their own huge gaming community (which remains largely WoW based) and restricts third parties from holding tournaments so they can be fully aware of SC2's popularity (which may or may not be a good thing). They are very serious about having SC2 or a community mod based on it succeed as an e-sport, and everything about the game from design to marketing seems to be fixated on that. That means having to make sacrifices and compromises in order to cater to all players. While SC2 has a lower skill ceiling than its predecessor, it can be expected that the game will evolve beyond how we understand it now if it becomes huge. Players will always find ways to innovate and gain even the smallest advantage over their opponents when there's enough money on the line. This is one of the first posts in a long time that I have read that has made me think differently about what blizzard is doing. I think it is very well thought out. I would like to add that one drawback that they are experiencing now with the changes they have made to the game is a pro scene that is extremely fickle. I think it is pretty clear that every sport needs legends and consistently awesome players to cheer for. Sc2 is struggling with this. | ||
|
Mortician
Bulgaria2332 Posts
By the way, everybody should read the FrozenSolid post, I would quote it but it turns out the person before me did it ^^ User was warned for this post | ||
|
Miwyfe
England101 Posts
| ||
|
j3i
United States357 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:35 Kipsate wrote: This is factually wrong, it didn't have hundreds of patches O.o. The customer only sees a few. The developers have to make hundreds. | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
How can you know a game is hard? Is the computer too hard? Well, the computer is not a real opponent. You instead compare yourself against other players. Are they better than you? If they are, is it difficult to play like them? If I invent a new sport where the winner is the guy who can first take down all three of his cans with rocks from a distance, is that easier than football? Well, then let me match you up against a guy who never misses and see if you can beat him. There will always be experts in any game. Stone-to-can throwing is not harder nor easier than football because the two games have different rules, ergo, no game is harder than another; there is no such concept at all. If SC2 is "much easier" than BW, then howcome... + Show Spoiler + BoxeR and NaDa ... got their asses handed to them 3-0? Please somebody explain that to me. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
| ||
Milkis
5003 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:35 Kipsate wrote: This is factually wrong, it didn't have hundreds of patches O.o. Not only that but SC1 was a game that was immediately popular mostly because of its timing and Korea's culture at that time. it didn't become popular just because it was a good game, it became popular because it was released in Korea at a really really nice time. | ||
|
Loli
60 Posts
On April 26 2011 05:32 EsX_Raptor wrote: If SC2 is "much easier" than BW, then howcome... + Show Spoiler + BoxeR and NaDa ... got their asses handed to them 3-0? Please somebody explain that to me. Well honestly, they weren't doing so hot towards the end of their BW careers either. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On April 25 2011 23:12 maybenexttime wrote: Some people settle for sc2 being just good, while others want it to be just as good if not better than BW. What's wrong with the latter? The fact that it's unrealistic? Even if you had a dream game development team, unlimited budget, and took the insight from the minds most intimately connected to BW's success, I don't think you could make a game as good as BW on your first attempt. As has been said by many people throughout SC2's development, BW was a lucky fluke and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. While I'm not really 100% happy with the state of SC2, I accept that it's still probably the best they could have accomplished given the resources allotted to them and Activision's profit expectations. I can't fault the development team for that. | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
On April 26 2011 05:47 Loli wrote: Well honestly, they weren't doing so hot towards the end of their BW careers either. I'm pretty sure BoxeR and NaDa are much better Broodwar players than any player in the TSL... | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:02 EsX_Raptor wrote: I'm pretty sure BoxeR and NaDa are much better Broodwar players than any player in the TSL... You mean other than the other ex-BW players that were doing at least as well as/better than them at the ends of their BW careers too? | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:35 Legatus Lanius wrote: whoa lets not go nuts, nothing is as good as a brood war tvz BW tvz is pretty much cookie cutter, what are you talking about? any match up with P in BW leads to pretty interesting games though. | ||
|
Kyuukyuu
Canada6263 Posts
On April 26 2011 05:32 EsX_Raptor wrote: If SC2 is "much easier" than BW, then howcome... + Show Spoiler + BoxeR and NaDa ... got their asses handed to them 3-0? Please somebody explain that to me. This is nonsensical to the point of flamebaiting, honestly. | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:05 TheYango wrote: You mean other than the other ex-BW players that were doing at least as well as/better than them at the ends of their BW careers too? We're actually derailing from the point... what i'm trying to say is, for example, both IdrA and Mondragon got beaten by a WC3 player. Does this mean WC3 has a higher skill ceiling than BW? Thus the claim that BW > SC2 in skill level is very brittle. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On April 26 2011 05:54 TheYango wrote: The fact that it's unrealistic? Even if you had a dream game development team, unlimited budget, and took the insight from the minds most intimately connected to BW's success, I don't think you could make a game as good as BW on your first attempt. As has been said by many people throughout SC2's development, BW was a lucky fluke and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. While I'm not really 100% happy with the state of SC2, I accept that it's still probably the best they could have accomplished given the resources allotted to them and Activision's profit expectations. I can't fault the development team for that. How is fixing the glaring issues that have been apparent ever since playable alpha unrealistic? Sure, BW was a fluke, but that doesn't mean we can't analyze is and see what made it so good post factum. Various community members have accurately determined various key aspects that made BW good that are missing in SC2. Blizzard could start from there. | ||
|
Ikonn
Netherlands1958 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote: We're actually derailing from the point... what i'm trying to say is, for example, both IdrA and Mondragon got beaten by a WC3 player. Does this mean WC3 has a higher skill ceiling than BW? Thus the claim that BW > SC2 in skill level is very brittle. Maybe that's because SC2 has a lower skill ceiling, meaning skill differences are levelled out more | ||
|
Yurie
11810 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote: We're actually derailing from the point... what i'm trying to say is, for example, both IdrA and Mondragon got beaten by a WC3 player. Does this mean WC3 has a higher skill ceiling than BW? Thus the claim that BW > SC2 in skill level is very brittle. How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well. | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:42 Yurie wrote: How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well. Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:47 EsX_Raptor wrote: Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is. Why settle for checker when we can make it into chess 2? | ||
|
red4ce
United States7313 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:47 EsX_Raptor wrote: Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is. No, we shouldn't. How else is Blizzard supposed to know what to fix if we don't voice our dissatisfaction? | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:51 red4ce wrote: No, we shouldn't. How else is Blizzard supposed to know what to fix if we don't voice our dissatisfaction? Our perception of SC2 is biased by BW. As a consequence, we'll try the best we can to turn SC2 into a 3D version of BW. IMO: The key to any sequel lies entirely on its storyline, not user feedback. | ||
|
red4ce
United States7313 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:54 EsX_Raptor wrote: Our perception of SC2 is biased by BW. As a consequence, we'll try the best we can to turn SC2 into a 3D version of BW. IMO: The key to any sequel lies entirely on its storyline, not user feedback. What does the storyline have to do with multiplayer? SC2 could have the most amazing single player ever, but it would do nothing for the game's advancement as an E-sport. | ||
|
funnybananaman
United States830 Posts
| ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
It's pretty useless because they dont have this kind of micro strat, they might even think that it's just a simple micro tactic like what they have in SC2. And regarding macro aspect being not 'fun to watch', thats not the point SC2 fans. They point here is that, It's a hella hard to macro these buildings to pump units but progamers do this effortlessly and WHILE DOING THAT, THEY ARE TECHING AND MICROING UNITS WITH DUMB PATHING AI! That after a certain battle, you get to see fresh units from 312908472938472984 gateways, factories and hatcheries. Watch the latest Best vs Flash if you think Macro isn't fun to watch. The screaming girls in the background beg to differ. Regarding the O.P., well to me after the end of 2010, SC2 was bound to be a disaster of an RTS just like WC3. They are patching it. Balancing it like a lot just like WC3 to a point where it's dull and balance TO BLIZZARD'S EYES. BW was balanced because the community has balanced it after BW was left out by blizzard. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
I've pretty much given up on SC2 now. It's never going to be the type of game i'd like after playing BW, and to be honest they don't seem to care about it as a sport much at all. What's with Bnet 2 still being terrible to host tournaments on this long after release? The way they keep going on about eSports, you'd think it'd be a priority. I think it's embarrassing the fact the lead designer of the game apparently couldn't even comprehend the idea of a competitive RTS. Or at least considering it's his job, how about actually getting GOOD at BW to be able to accurately judge why it works as a competitive game? He's not even 'good' at the game hes a lead designer on. A game that's his job and a major part of his life for years. Would it be that much effort to make some time to get to a decent level of play and understand the game if you're making the fucking sequel to it? :/ | ||
|
where
144 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Sc2 isn't a bad game and it is a real financial success but for broodwar veterans well frankly there aren't many new things in this game. Yea for sure they have upgraded/dumbed down the UI but that's pretty much it. I think that they didn't try to make something really different and that's why many broodwar players feel that the game is boring or for noobs. I mean the two games share a lot of similarities ( except the ui ). So yea i blame the top guys because they didn't want to take any risks ( of course i know that they have their own $ reasons ). Lot of people also dislike War3 but at least it seems that Blizzard really tried to make something new with that game and it is not competing with broodwar. I wish they could have made this game more different with real new concepts like for bw and war3. All we got is some "flashy" macro mechanics that they added because of the backslash over MBS. I don't think it is enough for many bw veterans. There are so many things in this game that are "arbitrarily" like in bw. Why a 200/200 limit ? Why no bigger armies ? Why only two ressources ? etc... All we got is a 90's oldschool RTS with a modern UI and 3D and even if the game is decent/good that's quite shallow. Remind me a bit of SFIV vs Third Strike. edit: also i feel that the engine is inferior to bw for micro and there are way too many boring units in that game. | ||
|
lepape
Canada557 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:33 maybenexttime wrote: Well, personally I think he did not understand what made BW great in the least. He/they removed all the fun/exciting units from BW (Vultures, Wraiths, Lurkers and so on) and replaced them (mostly) with boring a-move units (Marauders, Vikings, Hellions, Immortals, Colossi, etc.). They also screwed up some of the old units (Hydra comes to mind). Then there's the lack of highground advantage, defender's advantage and positional play. The lack of micro is also pretty apparent, and so is the hardcounter gameplay, very un-StarCraft-like. Not to mention the ball vs. ball gameplay and horrible maps/their ladder mappool policy, as well as the fact that they deliberately refuse to fix those aspects of gameplay that can be fixed (like micro, look up Project Micro on TL) and patch interesting micro tricks because they're conflicting with their design policy... Instead of trying to understand something as deep as BW on their own, they should've consulted some of the more knowledgable players, who have shown that their understanding of what's made BW so great and what's sc2 lacking is superior to that of blizzard designers (I'm talking about the articles on positional gameplay, spells, etc. we've had on TL). All in all, the game is OK (TvZ and TvT are actually on par with BW MUs), but it could've been so much better. I think Browder failed because he tried to appease two drastically different groups - competitive and casual players - by trying to make sc2 play the same way for both of them. He should've taken a different approach - instead of getting rid of any non-obvious features (like Muta stacking, patrol micro, mineral jumping, Void Ray micro, positional play, etc.), he should've embraced them. Casual players would be unaware of them (unless blizzard made some tutorials) and they'd keep playing the game "the simple way," while competitive players would be able to go deeper and explore other aspects of the game. Well said, SC1 was full of exciting, gamebreaking units who could be considered overpowered in their own way. Sure, SC2 has banelings and reapers who are also spectacular, but if you compare for example Vultures vs Hellions, or Reaver vs Colossus, many SC2 counterparts feel bland, static and boring. But to be fair, SC1 became much better with BW so I can't wait to see how SC2 will be like in 4-5 years. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
sometimes self-imposed restrictions are in place because what might sound like fun -- or even actually be fun -- could ruin or over-complicate the design of a competitive game. Ohhh, so that's why there's no cool units in SC2 and it's so boring and generic. Good ideas for units that could have been like Reavers, mines, and arbiters were thrown out in exchange for units that don't do anything interesting because they were afraid they couldn't design a balanced game with interesting units. It kind of makes sense when you think about it. They want really badly for it to be an eSport.... But then, did anyone invent basketball, soccer, etc because they thought it was going to be a competitive sport watched by millions? No, they created something they thought would be fun. It should be the same way with eSports in my opinion. Make something that is fun first. Let fate decide whether or not it's possible to balance. | ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
On April 26 2011 09:34 Boblion wrote: People are blaming Browder way too much. The Sc2 team has made many mistakes but i think that the real problem is the top executives. Sc2 isn't a bad game and it is a real financial success but for broodwar veterans well frankly there aren't many new things in this game. Yea for sure they have upgraded/dumbed down the UI but that's pretty much it. I think that they didn't try to make something really different and that's why many broodwar players feel that the game is boring or for noobs. I mean the two games share a lot of similarities ( except the ui ). So yea i blame the top guys because they didn't want to take any risks ( of course i know that they have their own $ reasons ). Lot of people also dislike War3 but at least it seems that Blizzard really tried to make something new with that game and it is not competing with broodwar. I wish they could have made this game more different with real new concepts like for bw and war3. All we got is some "flashy" macro mechanics that they added because of the backslash over MBS. I don't think it is enough for many bw veterans. There are so many things in this game that are "arbitrarily" like in bw. Why a 200/200 limit ? Why no bigger armies ? Why only two ressources ? etc... All we got is a 90's oldschool RTS with a modern UI and 3D and even if the game is decent/good that's quite shallow. Remind me a bit of SFIV vs Third Strike. edit: also i feel that the engine is inferior to bw for micro and there are way too many boring units in that game. WC3 TFT had its food limit increased to 100. Blizzard might do same thing with expansion packs. Perhaps 250 and finally 300. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 26 2011 10:41 Too_MuchZerg wrote: WC3 TFT had its food limit increased to 100. Blizzard might do same thing with expansion packs. Perhaps 250 and finally 300. It was more than just food limit though .. There was upkeep if players get to certain amount of food count, heavily decreasing the macro aspect of the game. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 26 2011 08:59 where wrote: Dustin Browder helped design the crap from EA after they ate Westwood, wrecking the charm of both the C&C and Red Alert series. Little wonder his handling of Starcraft seems subpar. It would be like handing your reputable brand to Uwe Boll to make into a movie. As I've said before, Browder mainly worked on Red Alert 2, C&C Generals, and Battle for Middle Earth before leaving EA. RA2 can be considered the peak of classical C&C. Generals, though not necessarily a traditional C&C game, is still quite fun and is a good RTS. Battle for Middle Earth combined a lot of interesting and radical ideas with a cinematic presentation to create a pretty nice game that, though it didn't meet Browder's expectations, I found to be fun. BFME2, C&C3, RA3, and C&C4 all came after Browder's leave. BFME 2 was announced in July of 2005. C&C3 was announced in 2006. Browder left in March of 2005. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
You don't form grand tank lines with spider mines and try to control space around the game. You don't try to stasis a good bunch of enemy units and then recall into his vulnerable back, or break defenses with carpet storms. Neither do you stall chokes with lurkers and wait for swarm to be up so you can slowly inch forward. Most games just involve a mix of 4-5 unit types mashed into a ball and hope yours counters his. The only thing close to what BW was is TvT in SC2, but tanks are 3 supply, so the matchup can get even more volatile. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
| ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On April 26 2011 09:34 Boblion wrote: Well look at the RTS genre as a whole. It is mature. IT has had its experiments since the early 90s up to its current state. And frankly the non-standard rts economy system games have been disasters. The control point systems of thq games and and the mineral mining systems of blizz&westwood games or variations thereof have been the only ones producing excellent gameplay, which is why they have stuck with it. So there really hasnt been a whole lot to innovate while maintaining a good game.People are blaming Browder way too much. The Sc2 team has made many mistakes but i think that the real problem is the top executives. Sc2 isn't a bad game and it is a real financial success but for broodwar veterans well frankly there aren't many new things in this game. Yea for sure they have upgraded/dumbed down the UI but that's pretty much it. I think that they didn't try to make something really different and that's why many broodwar players feel that the game is boring or for noobs. I mean the two games share a lot of similarities ( except the ui ). So yea i blame the top guys because they didn't want to take any risks ( of course i know that they have their own $ reasons ). Lot of people also dislike War3 but at least it seems that Blizzard really tried to make something new with that game and it is not competing with broodwar. I wish they could have made this game more different with real new concepts like for bw and war3. All we got is some "flashy" macro mechanics that they added because of the backslash over MBS. I don't think it is enough for many bw veterans. There are so many things in this game that are "arbitrarily" like in bw. Why a 200/200 limit ? Why no bigger armies ? Why only two ressources ? etc... All we got is a 90's oldschool RTS with a modern UI and 3D and even if the game is decent/good that's quite shallow. Remind me a bit of SFIV vs Third Strike. edit: also i feel that the engine is inferior to bw for micro and there are way too many boring units in that game. | ||
|
Elefanto
Switzerland3584 Posts
On April 26 2011 14:21 BLinD-RawR wrote: expansions will make SC2 interesting...I'll believe in that...like I said before the original game is for Blizzard to reel people in.Expansions add depth.all in all I do think that eventually SC2 can do BW proud,but right now I don't care because it isn't doing so. I think so too. Sc2 isn't close to Bw in any aspect of the game right now. But Sc2 is a solid game afterall. It's already quite balanced, and we can clearly evaluate what's missing to make it closer to what bw made exciting. We have 2 add-ons to come, and if blizzard does its job right, Sc2 can become really great. So i'm looking forward in hoping they do it right with the add-ons (they did it right for sc1, and for wc3, so i'm positive) | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote: Found this gem comment in the source article lol. "Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans. Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open." Difference being that BW patches added content whilst SC2 patches take away content. Two protoss abilities removed so far in SC2 , nothing really added to compensate for the reduction in options. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
hmmm...
632 Posts
| ||
|
FrozenSolid
Finland134 Posts
On April 26 2011 09:34 Boblion wrote: People are blaming Browder way too much. The Sc2 team has made many mistakes but i think that the real problem is the top executives. Sc2 isn't a bad game and it is a real financial success but for broodwar veterans well frankly there aren't many new things in this game. Yea for sure they have upgraded/dumbed down the UI but that's pretty much it. I think that they didn't try to make something really different and that's why many broodwar players feel that the game is boring or for noobs. I mean the two games share a lot of similarities ( except the ui ). So yea i blame the top guys because they didn't want to take any risks ( of course i know that they have their own $ reasons ). Lot of people also dislike War3 but at least it seems that Blizzard really tried to make something new with that game and it is not competing with broodwar. I wish they could have made this game more different with real new concepts like for bw and war3. All we got is some "flashy" macro mechanics that they added because of the backslash over MBS. I don't think it is enough for many bw veterans. There are so many things in this game that are "arbitrarily" like in bw. Why a 200/200 limit ? Why no bigger armies ? Why only two ressources ? etc... All we got is a 90's oldschool RTS with a modern UI and 3D and even if the game is decent/good that's quite shallow. Remind me a bit of SFIV vs Third Strike. edit: also i feel that the engine is inferior to bw for micro and there are way too many boring units in that game. I'm using this post as a starting point, I'm not directing it specifically to you and you make some very good points. Perhaps I can encourage objective discussion about what we've discovered here? I tried to address what I perceive to be the reasoning behind how SC2 was designed in my post, and you are correct in thinking that SC2 was never meant to deliver a new and more challenging experience to the serious Broodwar player. The core-audience of die-hard SC1/Broodwar fans is just too small to reliably create a new community around the new game. By making the game more accessible to new players, you are encouraging a larger player-base for the game, and thus promoting the idea of competing who is the best. When the player-base is large enough, it becomes statistically more probable that players reach more intricate levels of play working with what they have. This is why top Broodwar players today have reached a point far beyond what games like age of empires or C&C can offer. The game's popularity in Korea is what allowed for the game to be explored and gameplay to develop. It is why Broodwar is still considered the most balanced RTS ever made; because the community took it to themselves to create that balance through exploring every intricacy in the game. This led to the community created starleagues and competitions we see today. If Blizzard had simply released Broodwar as it is now but with graphical updates in the West instead of SC2, the game would likely never have taken off, even though it would be the same Broodwar we cherish and love. Broodwar's UI and unit AI are pretty alien to many new players, and they discourage new players from picking up the game. By making SC2 easier to pick up, Blizzard is promoting the creation of a large player-based community around the game. They are making it easier for C&C players, Age of Empires players, WC3 players, SupCom players, CoH players, DoW players and Broodwar players to pick up the new game and begin from an even starting point. This is not unlike what has happened with the fighting game community when Street Fighter 4 or Mortal Kombat 9 were released. Known US Street Fighter players like Combofiend and Alex Valle, and Tekken players like RiP have picked up MK9, despite it being very different from the games they've made a name for themselves in. The new game has brought two previously almost hostile communities closer together and reinvigorated the 2D MK fan-base. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Doing this is also relative to Blizzard's interests, because it dramatically increases unit sales as opposed to making a hard game for hardcore enthusiasts. The only people who lose out on SC2's design are the die-hard Broodwar fans who expected another game like Broodwar. They represent a vast minority in the potential player-base of the game so it makes little financial sense to cater entirely to that audience at the expense of everyone else. The reasons that make a game fun are subjective, and not objective, as we would often like to believe. By researching what has made popular games successful in the west, Blizzard is looking to make a game that a lot of people like. That's likely why they brought Dustin Browder to the project in the first place. So yes, Blizzard is doing this for the money. That's what it comes down to, and you can't really fault them for doing so. They are, after all, a public company that has to answer to their stockholders. As a result, SC2 is unlikely to undergo dramatic changes with the two upcoming expansion packs. It's a shame, but unless there's a community metagame-shift away from unit blobs, we're unlikely to see anything change with the x-packs. We're stuck with what we get, and if we don't like SC2 there is nothing that prevents us from playing BW. The concerns you have about SC2's engine are very valid, but there are good reasons for their implementation. Supply is capped at 200/200 because of how SC2's unit AI works. Specifically, every unit has its own advanced AI that has to be processed in real time. This is incredibly taxing on the CPU. Just because a game doesn't look like Crysis 2 on max settings doesn't mean it can't run heavy. The 200/200 supply cap is implemented because it lowers the game's system requirements. This again promotes a larges player-base, because not everyone has a powerful computer to play games on. It also shares similarities with Broodwar's system, so it has nostalgic value, and it's a very common concept to have a hard limit of how many units you can make over the course of any RTS game. Having a higher supply cap would further encourage turtling and a lower supply cap would take away from multitasking and managing an economy. The supply cap is relatively low to keep game lengths reasonable as well. Again, this is likely to promote using the game as a broadcasted e-sport. Starcraft 2 likely features only a few resources to make it simpler to understand from both a player and a spectator viewpoint. The extreme example of a game that's heavy in resource management is Earth 2150, which features an absurd amount of resources and unit customization. Another example would be the Civilization series, which is designed purely for the hard-core audience. When resources begin to have overlapping purposes (using one common and either of two rare resources to build very similar units, or gaining control of iron and copper in Civ), they generally create an overly complicated situation for the players to objective asses. "I see my opponent is getting Iridium and Noble gases, is he making mechas or tanks? Do I have to prepare for hovercraft? What about air support or artillery?" This gives the game too much variance, and allows lesser skilled players to beat more skilled players due to the lack of knowledge of the enemy's army composition by the abundance of the options he has. Having two resources gives the option of being able to build powerful technical units with a rare resource and lots of weaker simple units with the common resource. It's the simplest way to differentiate between units beyond just having the technical units cost an absurd amount of resources. Having shallow rules for a game doesn't necessarily make it bad, just look at traditional sports and games like Soccer, Baseball or even Poker that are massively popular around the world, have simple rules, and yet have very intricate strategy that make them very much skill based as opposed to say, power-lifting which is mostly dependent on simple strength (but also requires a good technique). Starcraft 2's engine is actually much more powerful than Broodwar's on any objective scale. SC2's cutscenes are, for the most part, rendered in real time within the engine. Dumb unit AI has been replicated via the SC2:BW mod that has gained some popularity on battlenet 2.0. The official mod "starjeweled" shows that the engine can be used for a very different purpose than just for an RTS game. There was recent controversy about someone using the engine to create an MMO based on Starcraft. The engine has massive potential for the modding community, and users are given good tools to make use of it. That being said there are some things about BW that the SC2 engine cannot replicate, but those are generally due to quirks in BW's older game engine which was designed on different limitations than the SC2 engine. The many micro tricks we know and love are mostly based on quirks that weren't intended at all in the first place, like patrol micro and muta-stacking. Because it's hard to identify what caused that behavior in the first place, it's hard to replicate it exactly as it was in a newer engine. Many intricate engine based tricks are also hard for spectators to follow, so they actually discourage casual viewers from tuning into a broadcast a second time. As for the actual way SC2 games play out, I can only say that it's very different from Broodwar. Whether you like SC2's gameplay or not is very subjective and nobody is forcing you to play SC2 over Broodwar. The fact remains that they are both good games and that the popularity of either game indirectly benefits the other. While Broodwar's foreign player-base has taken quite a hit, SC2's release has also introduced many new players from other communities to Starcraft's core concepts and to the BW Korean pro scene. TL being a shared community is a great example of promoting exposure to both games. A casual SC2 viewer/player just might open up a BW stream every once in a while out of curiosity and take notice to how great BW actually is and what they've been missing this whole time. By the same account, many BW players can follow SC2 and see if the game evolves in a direction they like and would consider playing. Personally, I find it exciting to watch any game finals when lots of money is on the line, be it SSF4/MK9/MvC3/SC:BW/SC2/Quake Live/Counter-Strike/TF2 or what have you. Sorry for ranting on a second time. I can't help but feel that SC2 is a resource and great possibility for Broodwar, and I hate to see the communities split due to disappointment and elitism from both sides. While I don't agree with every decision Blizzard has made during SC2's development, I feel it important for the fans to understand the reasons why they came to the conclusions they did. I absolutely adore BW, and SC2 has my full attention as BW's spiritual successor. I would love for both games to be extremely popular, be it in Korea or in the West. | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5094 Posts
seriously they could have made it so much better. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
| ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On April 26 2011 18:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Difference being that BW patches added content whilst SC2 patches take away content. Two protoss abilities removed so far in SC2 , nothing really added to compensate for the reduction in options. speed boost for a void ray isnt an ability, its not a spell and its not something you have to use during the gameplay. it was also clearly broken, protoss having an air to air unit that cant be outrun, cant be outgunned, and got better as the numbers in the fight went up. as for the amulet, thats been done to death but if you think templar are weak now, its gonna take more than 1 person to change your mind. they havent removed any abilities, just some upgrades, and they will be adding more with the expansions. people should remember sc2 isnt a broodwar expansion, its a whole new game. maybe you just arent going to like it as much as you like broodwar. | ||
|
butchji
Germany1531 Posts
(I love BW and sc2 btw and recognize sc2 has a lot of flaws...) | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 26 2011 20:57 maybenexttime wrote: Personally, I think a group of people from TL would've done a better job with sc2 design wise. And don't tell me we're just gamers so we don't really have an idea what it takes to design a good game - gamers designed CS, DotA and its clones, as well as made Armies of Exigo, a game that captures the spirit of BW better than SC2 itself imo. The problem with the Armies of Exigo example is that it was not very well received by the mainstream gaming media, getting a 69 on Metacritic. Granted, the mainstream gaming media may not be the best indicator of a great game (as shown by CoD and Halo being so critically acclaimed). However, many reviewers did find Armies of Exigo to be too derivative off of previous RTS games, especially in regards to the overall design, interface, and mechanics. As a result, perhaps an exact replica of BW and its mechanics may not be the best decision when trying to get the critical praise of the mainstream gaming media and the accompanying extra sales. And herein lies the big problem with BW and SC2. SC2 changed enough obvious things to differentiate itself from BW and seem like an improvement, which pleased all the mainstream critics. However, the critics were not the gamers who recognized the subtleties of BW that were missing in SC2, so there is a distinct disconnect between what BW fans want and what the mainstream gaming media expect. Consequently, I think SC2 was put into a very bad position in terms of game design. Trying to straddle the gap between mainstream gaming and e-sports is extremely difficult. On one hand, I think Browder could've made a fantastic non-esport game. He had some very nice ideas for fun units, though those ideas are terrible from a balance and competitive perspective. On the other hand, Blizzard's idea of making the game appropriate for e-sports is to achieve perfect balance for an absolutely even playing field at all levels, even if it means nerfing and watering down the game to oblivion. As a result, I think they cut corners by not including BW's old micro tricks and taking away newly discovered tricks so that the game would be easier to balance without all the "unfair" micro advantages muddying up their numbers. Sometimes, I wish Blizzard would assign Browder a different RTS project or perhaps even aim for SC2 not being an e-sport. The guy can make really fun games and is a great game designer, but that is not enough when trying to create the successor to BW. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
Plus you say things that are just wrong. The AI is hardly advanced enough to be extremely taxing on the CPU. A few people who are experienced with AI on here can probably back me up on this. The units are hardly even making many decisions, i don't think moving in a big ball and pathfinding to be able to attack is particularly advanced at all, it's definitely NOT the reason for the 200/200 supply cap. When it's in 3D and units can fit tightly together like they do it's not like the units are making complex decisions all the time that need tons of calculation. Another thing you say, muta-stacking. It's not hard to identify why it works at all. Every single unit works that way, and it's even intended and deliberate because of the 'magic box' for moving units in formation. When 1 unit is not near, all units stack close together. When they are close, they go in formation. I don't know why people refer to muta-stacking as some kind of crazy bug that no one has any idea why it happens when its actually very simple. If you just make up things like this it makes people question everything else you say too. You used a whole lot of words with hardly any conclusion drawn from it. Everyone here is perfectly aware of the audience Blizzard is trying to capture, but this is an eSports and competitive gaming focused site and we are giving our perspective on things. We don't need to be reminded constantly that Blizzard is trying to make money and appeal to a wide audience, things like removing ladder losses showing is blatant actions which show this. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On April 26 2011 21:14 turdburgler wrote: speed boost for a void ray isnt an ability, its not a spell and its not something you have to use during the gameplay. it was also clearly broken, protoss having an air to air unit that cant be outrun, cant be outgunned, and got better as the numbers in the fight went up. as for the amulet, thats been done to death but if you think templar are weak now, its gonna take more than 1 person to change your mind. they havent removed any abilities, just some upgrades, and they will be adding more with the expansions. people should remember sc2 isnt a broodwar expansion, its a whole new game. maybe you just arent going to like it as much as you like broodwar. These expansions are really going to have to be something special to rescue SC2 melee (i enjoy the UMS SC2 maps so i don't feel disappointed by my purchase like some folks) ; unit design would have to take a completely different tack to SC2 vanilla with imaginative units that make the game more interesting than blob vs blob.Seriously units like Thor , Roach , Immortal etc these units are sooooo bland. My overall point was with each BW patch you could see progress being made , with every SC2 patch it seems the game is going backwards.Supply depot needed before barracks? Making reapers unviable? I never said templar were weak my main issue is nerfing templar just makes PvT even more of a colossus fest.The game is going backwards. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On April 26 2011 21:25 butchji wrote: Reading Broodwar fans writing about how superior it is in every single aspects makes me giggle. I guess you also think not getting an "Your forces are under attack" announcement when a DT kills all your drones is good as well for some reason. You're glorifying the game a bit too much imo. (I love BW and sc2 btw and recognize sc2 has a lot of flaws...) You do realise you are in the Brood War forums yes? Is it hard to comprehend why people praise BW and prefer it over some random other game in a Brood War forums? @turdburgler Blizz's style of "balancing" games is.. ignorant, if i may say so.. Removing stuffs from the game obviously gonna harshly affect balance.. Tweaking a few numbers intelligently, however, wont, not to mention its easier to do as well.. Supply -> Barracks was stupid, Reaper nerf is stupid as well (do people still use Reaper now? i dont follow the scene so i dont know), a bunch of other stuffs. Back in WC3, wasnt it simply Elf, Human, Orc taking turn to be overpowered, and Undead trudging behind all the time?.. Their lack of insight of their own games is astounding, and disappointing.. | ||
|
FrozenSolid
Finland134 Posts
Don't get me wrong, you don't have to like Blizzard or SC2 at all and I'm not advocating that you should. I simply think that people should be fully aware of what was going on so they can make informed decisions for themselves. Broodwar and SC2 "elitism" is what I see as the two sides being completely ignorant of each other and actively trying to disregard all objective discussion about either game. A comment about SC2 being "superior in every way" has no place what so ever in a Broodwar discussion, and the same goes for Broodwar comments about SC2 inferiority in an SC2 thread. The two games present opportunities for each other, so it doesn't make sense for them to alienate themselves from each other. I actually made the same point you did by saying that SC2 is unlikely to change in a dramatic fashion. The macro mechanics of that game have become standard already with the game's release, and they will not undergo significant changes. SC2 gameplay will not change, but the metagame and unit control could. If SC2's implementation of macro is something you don't enjoy, you don't have to play or watch the game, and nobody can fault you for that. I agree that BW has a much more complex macro system. When I say "advanced AI" I don't mean intelligent AI or well coded AI. I'm just making a statement as to how much SC2 actually requires from a computer to run at high FPS. A processor like an Intel Core2Duo E8800 (which was a mainstream/high-end processor a couple of years ago) has a hard time handling SC2 late game scenarios on high or even medium settings and maintaining 30 fps+ during large scale battles. If you play 4v4, the problem is even more highlighted. SC2 requires a powerful CPU to run because of how the unit behavior and physics engine is implemented. If the game had to process 50% more units per player, a 4v4 scenario would be really heavy on any older CPU, despite how intelligent the AI actually is. I'm basing this on empirical evidence to game performance on known hardware, I don't claim to know how the SC2 unit AI functions on a fundamental level. That evidence suggests that the unit cap is an integral part of the system requirements for the game. Regardless, that was only 1 of the points I made for the 200/200 supply cap, and I don't claim to know exactly why it was implemented. I'm just making educated guesses based on the information I have available. Whenever I'm referring to muta-staking, I mean in BW. SC2 certainly does have some micro tricks like the "Viking flower", but nothing on the level of Broodwar. I was mostly using it as an example of something that was not intended to happen in Broodwar actually becoming an important part of the metagame. Yet, imagine you're completely new to RTS. If you see muta-stacking for the first time without seeing "normally controlled" mutas, you're going to be a little bit confused when one muta suddenly splits into 11 or when it takes a substantial amount of medic marine to kill what seems to be just one really deformed muta. That's probably why SC2 doesn't have perfect unit-stacking, to make it easier to understand for new players or casual viewers. This isn't a hard concept to understand in BW because the viewership is already there, but it is detrimental for a game that's trying to bring in a lot more new people and to make it big in countries where BW failed to create a big community. Perhaps I failed to make my point clear. I'm not trying to be annoying or condescending in any way. I'm just trying to promote intelligent discussion on a topic that is very controversial, instead of having it be full of slander toward either game. You're free to ignore me and everything I post, but you should know that I have good intentions regardless. I appreciate that the BW selection of TL is more in favor of BW than SC2, and I feel the BW community makes up a very important part of TL. Even so, it always makes sense to have a Devil's advocate in any discussion regardless of how you feel about it. | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
On April 26 2011 07:39 red4ce wrote: What does the storyline have to do with multiplayer? SC2 could have the most amazing single player ever, but it would do nothing for the game's advancement as an E-sport. The storyline determines everything; the units, abilities, maps, etc. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On April 26 2011 22:15 EsX_Raptor wrote: The storyline determines everything; the units, abilities, maps, etc. That's why diamondback, vultures and science vessel are not in the game ? | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 26 2011 22:15 EsX_Raptor wrote: The storyline determines everything; the units, abilities, maps, etc. so that is why siege tanks are different in the singleplayer then they are in the multiplayer? Marauders don't have stim in the singleplayer storyline either, but they do in the mutiplayer.\ Moreover, Banshees do aoe damage in the storylines(as can be judged from the singleplayer and the movies) yet banshees do not have aoe in the multiplayer. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
Blind fanboyism on blizzard won't get you nowhere. The community balanced the game out. Making it fun for the community to play the game. Blizzard made poor maps and left balancing the game when they made WC3. Let's take a look at WC3. How many patches did they made during the RoC? Now proceed to TFT. Honestly, how many patches did they made? How many 'balances' was made? Now, how is SC2 doing? .. Right being patched heavily. Leaving the community to catch up with them. The community that made BW what it is now was not really catching up with the game but was catching up with the ladder. They wanted to become a good gamer. To me, E-sport wasn't about the balance of BW entirely but the people that played the game. That made BW great is SK. People bought copies of BW because they saw it on TV and was amazed by the fact that if you were good in this game you can shine. Or just sit back and watch them high level pros duke it out. SC2 and Blizzard is heading the wrong way, IMO. It's only a matter of time before they fuck up the game like how they fucked up WC3:TFT. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On April 26 2011 21:30 eviltomahawk wrote: The problem with the Armies of Exigo example is that it was not very well received by the mainstream gaming media, getting a 69 on Metacritic. Granted, the mainstream gaming media may not be the best indicator of a great game (as shown by CoD and Halo being so critically acclaimed). However, many reviewers did find Armies of Exigo to be too derivative off of previous RTS games, especially in regards to the overall design, interface, and mechanics. As a result, perhaps an exact replica of BW and its mechanics may not be the best decision when trying to get the critical praise of the mainstream gaming media and the accompanying extra sales. I think the main difference is that Armies of Exigo was not an acclaimed frenchise and it needed to differentiate itself from other games. If you read the reviews, it's apparent that the mainstream critics cannot see past the very obvious surface - most of them claimed AoX is a WC3 copy-cat, when it actually plays nothing like WC3 FFS. ;; On the other hand, SC2 was, for the most part, praised for "staying true to its roots and sticking to the tried gameplay of the classic." If anything, the critics were complaining that Blizzard didn't change enough, yet it was received extremely well. And herein lies the big problem with BW and SC2. SC2 changed enough obvious things to differentiate itself from BW and seem like an improvement, which pleased all the mainstream critics. However, the critics were not the gamers who recognized the subtleties of BW that were missing in SC2, so there is a distinct disconnect between what BW fans want and what the mainstream gaming media expect. The truth is, Blizzard could've changed even more of the obvious things (remember Infestor's Infestation? Disease? How about Drop Pods? Predator? Overseer's Spore Cloud? Burrowing Ultras?) while staying true to the BW gameplay when it comes to the more subtle gameplay aspects, such as defender's advantage, highground advantage, micro tricks/techniques, space controling units, powerful spells (would require removing smart-casting, but that's not necessarily an issue - there was no smart-casting in any CNC games, yet nobody complained, and they're the type of players that want their UI as friendly as possible), micro-based counter system, good maps, etc. SC2 does not need units straight from BW to fix those issues, it doesn't need the exact same micro tricks or techniques either. I'm certain, that the mainstream media wouldn't even notice those things. I doubt they'd realize the difference (the gameplay implication) between the BW highground and SC2 highground advantage if it wasn't outright pointed out to them by Blizzard. They'd be completely unaware of subtle micro techniques the competitive players are mastering or how map control works with space controling units. Consequently, I think SC2 was put into a very bad position in terms of game design. Trying to straddle the gap between mainstream gaming and e-sports is extremely difficult. On one hand, I think Browder could've made a fantastic non-esport game. He had some very nice ideas for fun units, though those ideas are terrible from a balance and competitive perspective. On the other hand, Blizzard's idea of making the game appropriate for e-sports is to achieve perfect balance for an absolutely even playing field at all levels, even if it means nerfing and watering down the game to oblivion. As a result, I think they cut corners by not including BW's old micro tricks and taking away newly discovered tricks so that the game would be easier to balance without all the "unfair" micro advantages muddying up their numbers. I think Blizzard's balancing philosophy is completely flawed. It's like balancing chess and eventually ending up with only pawns at players' disposal. T___T An esport has to be fun to both watch and play and only then balanced, not the other way round. Blizzard really got it backwards... On April 26 2011 21:25 butchji wrote: Reading Broodwar fans writing about how superior it is in every single aspects makes me giggle. I guess you also think not getting an "Your forces are under attack" announcement when a DT kills all your drones is good as well for some reason. You're glorifying the game a bit too much imo. (I love BW and sc2 btw and recognize sc2 has a lot of flaws...) As a matter of fact, I do think that DTs not giving the "your forces are under attack" announcement is good for gameplay, and it's not some twisted logic or glorifying the game you're making it out to be. The single most characteristic trait of the DT is the fact that it's permanetly cloaked - for all intents and purposes it's a silent assasin. The fact that it's capable killing Probes/Drones without alarming the opponent further emphasizes its role and distinguishes that unit from other cloaked units. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 26 2011 22:50 maybenexttime wrote: The truth is, Blizzard could've changed even more of the obvious things while staying true to the BW gameplay when it comes to the more subtle gameplay aspects, such as defender's advantage, highground advantage, micro tricks/techniques, space controling units, powerful spells (would require removing smart-casting, but that's not necessarily an issue - there was no smart-casting in any CNC games, yet nobody complained, and they're the type of players that want their UI as friendly as possible), micro-based counter system, good maps, etc. SC2 does not need units straight from BW to fix those issues, it doesn't need the exact same micro tricks or techniques either. I'm certain, that the mainstream media wouldn't even notice those things. I doubt they'd realize the difference (the gameplay implication) between the BW highground and SC2 highground advantage if it wasn't outright pointed out to them by Blizzard. They'd be completely unaware of subtle micro techniques the competitive players are mastering or how map control works with space controling units. They will .. They do now .. If the dont get it, the casters will give the clueless viewers the idea. I don't know where do you get the idea that people won't notice the mechanics of the game if they are watching the match. They do, that's why if people saw these mechanics at play, coupled with the hype the casters or commentators, they can make an awesome atmosphere where in viewers would actually get it. BW didn't made itself what it is now by flashy, shiny stuff. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
You might not mean it that way but does this so they can make informed decisions for themselves. Well, enough with the hostiilties from me now. 1/ I agree that supply cap stays at 200/200, unless we somehow come to revelation that 256/256 is the optimal supply cap or something. 2/ Probably everybody knows that Blizz is mainly (like 99.9% main) trying to cater for the casuals. So stuffs like "removing Muta-stacking is to help the casual" really doesnt bring anything new to the table. Catering to the casuals, so far, have done nothing but deteriorate gameplay. And that bad gameplay is why people dislike the game, not because they dont understand Blizz's intention. Rant: Removing interesting units, and replacing them with A-move ones seriously sucks (i want Reavers!), and a bunch of other things thats been mentioned a zillion times already.. Even as a casual, i hate it (1v1 Plat (well i kinda stopped playing after 9 games T_T).. Nvr been to Iccup or Brainclan or w/e, as casual as it gets RTS-wise). Edit: Also like to add that i like the DT thing.. I mean, cmon probes, you got killed in ONE hit.. Nobody goes "Our forces are under attack" when they get off-ed in 0.5 second. | ||
|
SgtRock
Canada93 Posts
I have owned and played every game Blizzard has released since wacraft 1. (Except WoW, thank goodness) Guys, Starcraft 2 has met my expectations. I am very pleased with the game. Sure, it isn't BW, and never will be. BW is a different game, I honestly have no idea what some of the BW fanboys wanted to see SC2 do. Many were set to throw in the failure card off the get-go, not caring about how good or bad the game really was. Am I mad that I can select all of my hatcheries at once? No. Am I mad that we can now set a rally point on minerals? No. Am I made that the AI allows for "pushing" and not making 3 dragoons magically walk into my mineral line every time I want to leave my base? No. Does all of that make BW better than SC:2? No. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:08 SgtRock wrote: Who knew the BW world hates SC:2 so much? I played SC back in the first months since the release. Heck I played the ORIGINAL Warcraft. I had to wait for War2. I have owned and played every game Blizzard has released since wacraft 1. (Except WoW, thank goodness) Guys, Starcraft 2 has met my expectations. I am very pleased with the game. Sure, it isn't BW, and never will be. BW is a different game, I honestly have no idea what some of the BW fanboys wanted to see SC2 do. Many were set to throw in the failure card off the get-go, not caring about how good or bad the game really was. Am I mad that I can select all of my hatcheries at once? No. Am I mad that we can now set a rally point on minerals? No. Am I made that the AI allows for "pushing" and not making 3 dragoons magically walk into my mineral line every time I want to leave my base? No. Does all of that make BW better than SC:2? No. thats because you like simple games. im sure jaedong wouldnt be too fond of a game that made units for him that couldnt be micro'd | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 26 2011 22:59 ffreakk wrote: Rant: Removing interesting units, and replacing them with A-move ones seriously sucks (i want Reavers!), and a bunch of other things thats been mentioned a zillion times already.. Even as a casual, i hate it (1v1 Plat (well i kinda stopped playing after 9 games T_T).. Nvr been to Iccup or Brainclan or w/e, as casual as it gets RTS-wise). No, you don't want them. You want the idea of reavers. Hard to master and if mastered well, will produce good results. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:08 SgtRock wrote: Who knew the BW world hates SC:2 so much? I played SC back in the first months since the release. Heck I played the ORIGINAL Warcraft. I had to wait for War2. I have owned and played every game Blizzard has released since wacraft 1. (Except WoW, thank goodness) Guys, Starcraft 2 has met my expectations. I am very pleased with the game. Sure, it isn't BW, and never will be. BW is a different game, I honestly have no idea what some of the BW fanboys wanted to see SC2 do. Many were set to throw in the failure card off the get-go, not caring about how good or bad the game really was. Am I mad that I can select all of my hatcheries at once? No. Am I mad that we can now set a rally point on minerals? No. Am I made that the AI allows for "pushing" and not making 3 dragoons magically walk into my mineral line every time I want to leave my base? No. Does all of that make BW better than SC:2? No. Why do you waste our time by posting a stupid straw man argument? There are several key gameplay aspects of BW that made it a great game that are missing from sc2 and would've made it much better. You are deliberately ignoring them... edit: It's not a coincidence that both TvZ and TvT are regarded as the most fun to play/watch SC2 MUs and happen to be the most similar to BW out of all SC2 MUs. | ||
|
SgtRock
Canada93 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:10 Legatus Lanius wrote: thats because you like simple games. im sure jaedong wouldnt be too fond of a game that made units for him that couldnt be micro'd Really? That's what it comes down to? I'm glad I left BW. User was warned for this post | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:11 maybenexttime wrote: Why do you waste our time by posting a stupid straw man argument? There are several key gameplay aspects of BW that made it a great game that are missing from sc2 and would've made it much better. You are deliberately ignoring them... This is like a bisu fan arguing with a flash fan but only dumber. Close-minded SC2 schmuks doesn't have to post on BW thread, let alone derail BW on a BW forum. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:13 SgtRock wrote: Really? That's what it comes down to? I'm glad I left BW. and everybody is glad you're gone | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:08 SgtRock wrote: Who knew the BW world hates SC:2 so much? I played SC back in the first months since the release. Heck I played the ORIGINAL Warcraft. I had to wait for War2. I have owned and played every game Blizzard has released since wacraft 1. (Except WoW, thank goodness) Guys, Starcraft 2 has met my expectations. I am very pleased with the game. Sure, it isn't BW, and never will be. BW is a different game, I honestly have no idea what some of the BW fanboys wanted to see SC2 do. Many were set to throw in the failure card off the get-go, not caring about how good or bad the game really was. Am I mad that I can select all of my hatcheries at once? No. Am I mad that we can now set a rally point on minerals? No. Am I made that the AI allows for "pushing" and not making 3 dragoons magically walk into my mineral line every time I want to leave my base? No. Does all of that make BW better than SC:2? No. Yes, im sure you love SC2, so please be so kind as to go back to that forums and embrace your beloved game, you have my blessings. Boasting that you have played every single one of Blizz games doesnt suddenly mean that you are not a casual. And it have been mentioned many times that Blizz cater their game (Sc2) to casuals, some are bound to like it. Edit: typos. | ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
The hundreds of patches comment is funny, though. | ||
|
Kooun
Canada260 Posts
i would have to agree | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 26 2011 22:56 aimaimaim wrote: They will .. They do now .. If the dont get it, the casters will give the clueless viewers the idea. I don't know where do you get the idea that people won't notice the mechanics of the game if they are watching the match. They do, that's why if people saw these mechanics at play, coupled with the hype the casters or commentators, they can make an awesome atmosphere where in viewers would actually get it. BW didn't made itself what it is now by flashy, shiny stuff. I think when the term "mainstream media" was being used, it was mainly referencing the mainstream press that writes up the previews and reviews for SC2 before and shortly after release. I assume that the majority of reviewers from major gaming publications have little or no knowledge of the BW or SC2 pro scene. Likewise, the majority of players probably have a similar background. The reviewers probably scramble to play through the campaign and a few multiplayer matches before writing up their reviews and choosing a rating. Consequently, they may be unaware of a lot of the subtleties of the game as they move on to other games to review. To most of the mainstream media, and probably most of the gaming community, competitive Starcraft is at most an anomaly and curiosity, so they are probably unaware of the subtleties that made BW so appealing to us. As a result, they probably have a lot of fun playing SC2 without realizing how much better it could be if the game had some tweaks to give it BW-esque depth. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
Try explaining that to a casual as a commentator so that he understands. Easy for you?Well yeah, you follow the game and you know how it works, you are not the casual audience, you are the hardcore gamer. what works better is, Ball A is engaging ball B. The whole shield/massive/large/small was taken out in favor of armored and light, which is easier to understand. | ||
|
FrozenSolid
Finland134 Posts
On April 26 2011 22:59 ffreakk wrote: @ FrozenSolid You might not mean it that way but does this imply that you think people arent capable of making decision, so they need the intelligent you to help them make their decision?.. Well, enough with the hostiilties from me now. I don't mean to imply that other people need my input to make intelligent decisions at all. Many people on this forum and in this thread are certainly smarter than I am. In fact, let me state that I don't consider myself particularly intelligent at all. This is a discussion thread about an interview of SC2's lead designer, and instead of repeating why I consider SC:BW to be better than SC2 wont add anything meaningful to the conversation, as other people have already done that. I'm basically stating my opinion that SC2 is an opportunity for BW because at this point potential new players outside of Korea will likely be SC2 converts and explaining why I think that way, despite SC2 practically splitting the old Broodwar community in two. If SC2 gathers a massive user-base, some of those users are bound to be curious about Broodwar, and may explore it as a result either through watching the Korean scene or because their SC2 heroes used to play Broodwar. Every cloud has a silver lining, or I should hope so at least. I'm just trying to discuss the article. The people in this thread are intelligent enough to put my opinions to shame if they care to. I just didn't want the thread to deteriorate to infighting between the community, and felt like looking at what's happened from a different point of view. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On April 26 2011 05:46 Milkis wrote: Not only that but SC1 was a game that was immediately popular mostly because of its timing and Korea's culture at that time. it didn't become popular just because it was a good game, it became popular because it was released in Korea at a really really nice time. Nice timing helped it get into the spotlight, but being a genuinely good game was what let it survive after Blizzard moved on to other projects and released other games. I can also say there was not a soul who played StarCraft I thinking 'oh, it will get better with the next expansion, don't worry guys! Just keep playing!' No one had to be told to play the game for the sake of ESPORTS. StarCraft II has every advantage possible right now and people are still saying 'maybe it will be good one day.' It is so sigh-worthy to try and defend SCII's flaws by claiming that SC:BW had it easier... Guess what, it was Blizzard's decision to make a game that doesn't run on any computer not dedicated to gaming. It was Blizzard's decision to make a generic RTS. It's Blizzard's decision to throw a tonne of money at their game instead of making something good first. I don't call that bad luck, or not having the same lucky timing SCI did. | ||
|
Reuental
United States457 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:46 Kipsate wrote: Try explaining the casual audience that vultures do not counter dragoons due to the fact that they deal concussive damage yet Dragoons are large, but that vultures can take off the shields of dragoons easily, which takes 100% full damage from concussive damage, and due to patrol micro they can moving shot to reduce the damage they take. Try explaining that to a casual as a commentator so that he understands. Easy for you?Well yeah, you follow the game and you know how it works, you are not the casual audience, you are the hardcore gamer. what works better is, Ball A is engaging ball B. The whole shield/massive/large/small was taken out in favor of armored and light, which is easier to understand. I can explain that to a casual easily. Everything is summed up by saying 'Vultures suck vs dragoons'. The casual spectator does not really need to be aware of anything else you mentioned. All the casual audience will see if a fast unit and the micro you can do to kill a infinite number of (insert melee unit here). | ||
|
butchji
Germany1531 Posts
As a matter of fact, I do think that DTs not giving the "your forces are under attack" announcement is good for gameplay, and it's not some twisted logic or glorifying the game you're making it out to be. rofl point proven | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
How so? Explain to me how it doesn't make in light of what role this unit has in gameplay? You didn't prove anything. Just your own bias. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On April 27 2011 00:21 Crabman123 wrote: I can explain that to a casual easily. Everything is summed up by saying 'Vultures suck vs dragoons'. The casual spectator does not really need to be aware of anything else you mentioned. All the casual audience will see if a fast unit and the micro you can do to kill a infinite number of (insert melee unit here). Your explanation both lack information - Vulture still deal full damage vs Dragoon (20) until their shields are depleted. and is slightly on the wrong side - Vulture doesnt entirely suck vs Dragoon 100% of the time.. Depleting Shields + spider-mining + low dragoon count can be pretty effective. Can be pretty bad as the official commentator if after your "Vultures suck vs Dragoons" all we see are blue goo  | ||
|
FrozenSolid
Finland134 Posts
On April 27 2011 00:08 maybenexttime wrote: Unfortunately, I think SC2 took away from BW way more players than it can possibly bring in. I'm just trying to work with what I have and trying not to lose hope. If SC2 sparks enough interest in BW and happens to fail, BW will be what the players are going to fall back on. Even if SC2 converts one new BW player, it will be a victory at this point. Not that SC2 is a bad game, but it's not BW. Perhaps I'm naive thinking that, but I'd rather be naive than give up all hope for BW outside Korea. SC2 failing is very unlikely and has a lot of other severe implications for e-sports outside Korea, but like I said before: There's always a silver lining. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:08 SgtRock wrote: Am I mad that I can select all of my hatcheries at once? No. Am I mad that we can now set a rally point on minerals? No. Am I made that the AI allows for "pushing" and not making 3 dragoons magically walk into my mineral line every time I want to leave my base? No. Does all of that make BW better than SC:2? No. Nope, those aren't the things that make BW better, the units do, the micro, and non-ballvball gameplay. I've played several hundred SC2 ladder games, and honestly, I'd only play SC2 melee to feel good about myself. I play BW to be competitive. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 27 2011 00:37 FrozenSolid wrote: I'm just trying to work with what I have and trying not to lose hope. If SC2 sparks enough interest in BW and happens to fail, BW will be what the players are going to fall back on. Even if SC2 converts one new BW player, it will be a victory at this point. Not that SC2 is a bad game, but it's not BW. Perhaps I'm naive thinking that, but I'd rather be naive than give up all hope for BW outside Korea. SC2 failing is very unlikely and has a lot of other severe implications for e-sports outside Korea, but like I said before: There's always a silver lining. Yes, better to hold out hope for BW | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
People who didn't play BW are drawn in by the hype. OMG! BW is an esport in Korea! Let's make this game into a world-wide esport! And 100% of the BW players who switched over did so because they listened to the hype and saw a new opportunity to earn some fame and cash. All the BW players who switched over were has-been's or never-been's. Is there even a single former Iccup A- rank or better player who thinks SC2 is a better game? I highly doubt that. Even before the beta was released, people took for granted that SC2 would be an esports, before anyone had even played the game. Think about that for a while! And that's the reason why the SC2 pro scene is so ridiculous today. The whole thing is forced. Blizzard are promoting it only because they want to earn money, and the players are supporting it for the money and fame rather than love for the game, although I guess for a lot of players it's the only thing they know, so in their eyes it could be a great game, since they can't really look at SC2 objectively. I don't know how many times I've read "But SC2 will be awesome in a few years after the new expansions and patches". Well, that doesn't justify having a pro scene today, with a sucky game. Why don't we just wait and see how the expansions pan out, and then we can think about a pro scene if the game is good enough. The SC2 pro scene was created entirely on hype, so what will happen when the hype dies out? | ||
|
ReketSomething
United States6012 Posts
On April 27 2011 00:37 ffreakk wrote: Your explanation both lack information - Vulture still deal full damage vs Dragoon (20) until their shields are depleted. and is slightly on the wrong side - Vulture doesnt entirely suck vs Dragoon 100% of the time.. Depleting Shields + spider-mining + low dragoon count can be pretty effective. Can be pretty bad as the official commentator if after your "Vultures suck vs Dragoons" all we see are blue goo Holy shit vultures do full damage to the shields of dragoons...omfg where have I been living. Im a fucking idiot. And thats the thing, vultures and dragoons can duke it out because they dont hard counter each other. With micro, either can win to a certain extent. Same with marines vs lurkers etc. Its fuckin awesome to watch (flash vs. bisu WCG anyone ? :D) god im an idiot...i played zerg but still... | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:46 Kipsate wrote: Try explaining the casual audience that vultures do not counter dragoons due to the fact that they deal concussive damage yet Dragoons are large, but that vultures can take off the shields of dragoons easily, which takes 100% full damage from concussive damage, and due to patrol micro they can moving shot to reduce the damage they take. Try explaining that to a casual as a commentator so that he understands. Easy for you?Well yeah, you follow the game and you know how it works, you are not the casual audience, you are the hardcore gamer. what works better is, Ball A is engaging ball B. The whole shield/massive/large/small was taken out in favor of armored and light, which is easier to understand. The better explanation is that the vulture's weapon sucks against dragoons, but you can attempt to plant mines near dragoons to beat them. So the protoss player attempts to move out of range of the mines while still shooting at the vultures, while the terran player tries to trap the dragoons with his mines. That is certainly a lot better than hellions get hard countered by stalkers so you build marauders to hard counter stalkers. | ||
|
FrozenSolid
Finland134 Posts
On April 27 2011 00:53 ninini wrote: The issue with SC2 is that ppl take it too seriously, just because it has the name "Starcraft" in its title. When it was released I didn't see it as the successor to SC1. I saw it as "just another RTS" game, and I quickly wrote it off because it didn't interest me, similarly to how RA3 didn't interest me. People who didn't play BW are drawn in by the hype. OMG! BW is an esport in Korea! Let's make this game into a world-wide esport! And 100% of the BW players who switched over did so because they listened to the hype and saw a new opportunity to earn some fame and cash. All the BW players who switched over were has-been's or never-been's. Is there even a single former Iccup A- rank or better player who thinks SC2 is a better game? I highly doubt that. Even before the beta was released, people took for granted that SC2 would be an esports, before anyone had even played the game. Think about that for a while! And that's the reason why the SC2 pro scene is so ridiculous today. The whole thing is forced. Blizzard are promoting it only because they want to earn money, and the players are supporting it for the money and fame rather than love for the game, although I guess for a lot of players it's the only thing they know, so in their eyes it could be a great game, since they can't really look at SC2 objectively. I don't know how many times I've read "But SC2 will be awesome in a few years after the new expansions and patches". Well, that doesn't justify having a pro scene today, with a sucky game. Why don't we just wait and see how the expansions pan out, and then we can think about a pro scene if the game is good enough. The SC2 pro scene was created entirely on hype, so what will happen when the hype dies out? While it's true that a lot of the hype was created even before the game was released, and that the competitive players switched over in search of a more popular game (and thus a higher chance of being able to go pro), SC2 did manage to catch the eye of players from nearly every RTS, even those who used to not like BW. The game was designed to be as appealing as possible, so this was to be expected. When lots of people started supporting the game, sponsors took note of both the name and the interest. With all the money that's in SC2 so far, trust me, the players are looking at SC2 very objectively. The idea of what's fun and what's not is very subjective. Perhaps the pros like the new gameplay for variety's sake. If they absolutely hated SC2, they wouldn't play it. E-sports isn't exactly the most stable industry to work in, the pros have to like playing the game or else they could never find the means to innovate, learn and get better. The SC2 pro scene isn't just hype at this point, it's real. There's a fomos article here that claims that JulyZerg thinks SC2 is "perhaps even more fun than Broodwar. Whether or not it's true is irrelevant; what matter is that he thinks SC2 is a fun game, even if it's not the "most fun" game. Granted, July wasn't doing so well near the end of his SC:BW career and perhaps he was looking at playing SC2 as a means to remain a competitive top player, but he is still a big part of Broodwar's history, and his words can influence many. As much as we prefer BW over SC2, we have to accept that our opinion is in the minority. SC2 isn't a bad game objectively. Top players are rising in the SC2 scene, and there aren't huge fluctuations in results between bad and good players. Given time, people will figure out the current metagame and leaders will emerge, but this will take a long time (Patching the game frequently actually is detrimental to this, since it discourages refining strategies if they're just going to get nerfed next patch). The professional scene will have consistency and SC2 has everything it needs to be an e-sport. The gameplay itself won't change. SC2 is what it is, and it won't become BW, ever. The difficulty at the top wont come from the challenges in macro and micro, but from other concepts, like mind games, knowledge of game states and periods where your build is strong and your opponent's is weak, and other such things. SC2 is not what we want, but rather it's what we get. It's not perfect, but we have to make do with what we have. Looking at it, I feel it's the best alternative to Broodwar with potential of going big. Then again, few foreign BW players still have hopes of going pro, but if SC2 is successful it may reinvigorate the e-sports scene in the west, and BW may yet have a chance. To be frank, I think that's the only chance BW has of becoming popular outside Korea. We've already exhausted all other options. | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
| ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On April 27 2011 01:39 FrozenSolid wrote: SC2 is not what we want, but rather it's what we get. I dont know how others feel, but i personally think that despite all ur proclamation of love for BW, you are just trying to shove SC2 into people face all the same, just in a rather roundabout way. If SC2 is not what i want, then i cant care less about it. I dont have to "get" it or anything. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 27 2011 02:07 ffreakk wrote: I dont know how others feel, but i personally think that despite all ur proclamation of love for BW, you are just trying to shove SC2 into people face all the same, just in a rather roundabout way. If SC2 is not what i want, then i cant care less about it. I dont have to "get" it or anything. I like his post. It's a top down view of the situation. It can't be denied SC2 is currently very big in the west. Overhyped or not (I feel it's extremely overhyped, but that's me), SC2 does not yet show signs of declining. We should hope that SC2 will bring awareness to BW instead of moping about wishing SC2 didn't exist, and should die immediately. Western BW was already half dead before SC2, SC2 could bring new blood, which we really need. SC2 is here to stay, we should instead focus on taking advantage of SC2's popularity to bring new people into BW. TL;DR: we can't hide in our shell forever and wait for SC2 to fail, because there's no guarantee that will happen. | ||
|
FrozenSolid
Finland134 Posts
On April 27 2011 02:07 ffreakk wrote: I dont know how others feel, but i personally think that despite all ur proclamation of love for BW, you are just trying to shove SC2 into people face all the same, just in a rather roundabout way. If SC2 is not what i want, then i cant care less about it. I dont have to "get" it or anything. I made the same claim a few posts back. If people don't like SC2, there is nothing that forces you to play it or be involved with it in any way. We are in agreement. Still, TL is a shared community and being here means having to occasionally deal with people who play SC2, which is what I was referring to. You can't escape that in TL. You quote my statements out of context to draw conclusions that aren't real. I wish you'd stop. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
Btw i thought one post in particular was pretty funny, "I guess you also think not getting an "Your forces are under attack" announcement when a DT kills all your drones is good as well for some reason.". Yeah as a matter of fact i think it is good.. why should the game alert you to everything that's going on? It's supposed to be a sneaky harassment unit. This is totally a matter of opinion, it's not simply an improvement just because you say it is. Same with some of the other 'improvements'. I also liked Chef's post about how nobody was spending their time on forums re-assuring each other to 'wait for the expansions' back in 1998. Things have changed so much. It all feels very forced in direction, the whole assumption it will be a sport. It's a good thing we didn't have an overly pro-active Blizzard taking a knife to the game every month to try and fix the balance at every possible level. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 27 2011 02:55 infinity2k9 wrote: Btw i thought one post in particular was pretty funny, "I guess you also think not getting an "Your forces are under attack" announcement when a DT kills all your drones is good as well for some reason.". Yeah as a matter of fact i think it is good.. why should the game alert you to everything that's going on? It's supposed to be a sneaky harassment unit. When something is killed instantly, it doesn't have time to raise an alarm. :D | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On April 27 2011 01:39 FrozenSolid wrote: While it's true that a lot of the hype was created even before the game was released, and that the competitive players switched over in search of a more popular game (and thus a higher chance of being able to go pro), SC2 did manage to catch the eye of players from nearly every RTS, even those who used to not like BW. The game was designed to be as appealing as possible, so this was to be expected. When lots of people started supporting the game, sponsors took note of both the name and the interest. With all the money that's in SC2 so far, trust me, the players are looking at SC2 very objectively. The idea of what's fun and what's not is very subjective. Perhaps the pros like the new gameplay for variety's sake. If they absolutely hated SC2, they wouldn't play it. E-sports isn't exactly the most stable industry to work in, the pros have to like playing the game or else they could never find the means to innovate, learn and get better. The SC2 pro scene isn't just hype at this point, it's real. There's a fomos article here that claims that JulyZerg thinks SC2 is "perhaps even more fun than Broodwar. Whether or not it's true is irrelevant; what matter is that he thinks SC2 is a fun game, even if it's not the "most fun" game. Granted, July wasn't doing so well near the end of his SC:BW career and perhaps he was looking at playing SC2 as a means to remain a competitive top player, but he is still a big part of Broodwar's history, and his words can influence many. As much as we prefer BW over SC2, we have to accept that our opinion is in the minority. SC2 isn't a bad game objectively. Top players are rising in the SC2 scene, and there aren't huge fluctuations in results between bad and good players. Given time, people will figure out the current metagame and leaders will emerge, but this will take a long time (Patching the game frequently actually is detrimental to this, since it discourages refining strategies if they're just going to get nerfed next patch). The professional scene will have consistency and SC2 has everything it needs to be an e-sport. The gameplay itself won't change. SC2 is what it is, and it won't become BW, ever. The difficulty at the top wont come from the challenges in macro and micro, but from other concepts, like mind games, knowledge of game states and periods where your build is strong and your opponent's is weak, and other such things. SC2 is not what we want, but rather it's what we get. It's not perfect, but we have to make do with what we have. Looking at it, I feel it's the best alternative to Broodwar with potential of going big. Then again, few foreign BW players still have hopes of going pro, but if SC2 is successful it may reinvigorate the e-sports scene in the west, and BW may yet have a chance. To be frank, I think that's the only chance BW has of becoming popular outside Korea. We've already exhausted all other options. That last paragraph summarizes the big divide between the BW and the SC2 community. SC2 copied many things from its predecessor from 200/200 max supply, SCVs, drones, probes, etc. but somehow the micro mechanics like moving shot and muta stacking are anathema to SC2's gameplay? Why should we settle for less? The game, as it stands now, isn't as deep as BW nor will it ever be unless the direction of the game design is changed. Blizzard has succeeded in making the game easier to learn but they dropped the ball on making it harder to master. Please keep in mind that there were also tournaments and a foreign scene in the early days of SC/BW. Do you remember when Blizzard had their own Bnet tournaments or when PGL1/2 were won by Crexis and D22-sosowac? Just because casual players are still interested in SC2 at the moment doesn't mean that they will continue on for long. It is still in its shiny phase. I think you overestimate how much the BW community cares about the foreigner scene. Most of us have become comfortable cheering for Koreans and have grown appreciative of the quirks of Korean culture and society. I, for one, don't really care for the novelty of seeing white people play the game. I really don't think that SC2 has any chance to tap into its potential until after at least a year or two after Legacy of the Void, when casuals have mostly left the game for the next shiny game and Blizzard has nobody to cater to except the remaining hardcore players. Frankly, a huge portion of BW's success was how new and unsophisticated the scene was back then. BW's last balance patch came just a few days after Boxer's first OSL win. The scene was able to evolve and discover new tricks without Blizzard patching them out of the game. The reason many BW veterans are up in arms is because we've seen it before. Blizzard balanced Warcraft 3 with an iron fist, just like they are doing with SC2. They were quick to remove any tricks and counters that players did that they did not design nor think of first. They balanced the game around hard counters. They were quick to remove any perceived "imbalances", even those that only existed at low levels of play or those only affecting 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4. The game was more successful than BW outside of Korea but never really took off and had a scene as good as BW in Korea was. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:46 Kipsate wrote: Try explaining the casual audience that vultures do not counter dragoons due to the fact that they deal concussive damage yet Dragoons are large, but that vultures can take off the shields of dragoons easily, which takes 100% full damage from concussive damage, and due to patrol micro they can moving shot to reduce the damage they take. Try explaining that to a casual as a commentator so that he understands. Easy for you?Well yeah, you follow the game and you know how it works, you are not the casual audience, you are the hardcore gamer. what works better is, Ball A is engaging ball B. The whole shield/massive/large/small was taken out in favor of armored and light, which is easier to understand. You don't need to explain anything to the casual audience. The casual audience of basketball doesn't understand how plays are run. The majority of casual basketball players have absolutely horrible off-ball movement and don't understand why Rip Hamilton and Reggie Miller are great at what they do. But basketball has a gigantic following worldwide and most people know few mechanics aside from fouls, scoring, and traveling. I don't understand why designers take a look from the top-down and conclude that things are too hard and that by taking them out, they appeal to casuals. When I played casual 3v3 BGH games in BW, no one ever muta microed, hardly anyone did patrol micro or had tight build orders, and it didn't affect us in the least. I thought Smash Bros Brawl was the same thing. They took out all the high level techniques from Melee, but as far as I know, people who played casually didn't give a damn about wave dashing or L-cancelling and they never mixed with the competitive players anyway, so I don't know why it makes it easier for casuals because they're a completely separate scene. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 27 2011 00:56 ReketSomething wrote: Holy shit vultures do full damage to the shields of dragoons...omfg where have I been living. Im a fucking idiot. And thats the thing, vultures and dragoons can duke it out because they dont hard counter each other. With micro, either can win to a certain extent. Same with marines vs lurkers etc. Its fuckin awesome to watch (flash vs. bisu WCG anyone ? :D) god im an idiot...i played zerg but still... Its not just vultures, shields take full damage from any attack, even Siege tanks do 100% their max damage against zealot shields until the shields are depleted and the ''small'' unit typ kicks in. Perhaps you all are right about what I said though, my bad, still you can't deny that it is hard to understand for a casual audience especially when vultures suddenly destroy dragoons. | ||
|
emucxg
Finland4559 Posts
Moreover Starcraft2 is not even nearly balanced, yeah yeah, there will be tons of patches incoming, but I doubt if it will fix the real problem. Warcraft3 is still imba after 9 years. Im too lazy to mention all problem SC2 got right now, it must be said over 9000 times already on this forum anyways. TLDR: Starcraft2 is a good game, but it still have alot works to do to make it legendary like broodwar. | ||
|
jw232
United States157 Posts
| ||
|
lungo
Denmark276 Posts
with an very established rts community, pros all over crawing to play sc2, i think blizzard made a bad job making this sc2.. its allmost at the stage i wouldnt even call it starcraft, its a disgrace to broodwar. anyway, i just keep watching msl and osl instead... | ||
|
FrozenSolid
Finland134 Posts
On April 27 2011 06:21 andrewlt wrote: That last paragraph summarizes the big divide between the BW and the SC2 community. SC2 copied many things from its predecessor from 200/200 max supply, SCVs, drones, probes, etc. but somehow the micro mechanics like moving shot and muta stacking are anathema to SC2's gameplay? Why should we settle for less? The game, as it stands now, isn't as deep as BW nor will it ever be unless the direction of the game design is changed. Blizzard has succeeded in making the game easier to learn but they dropped the ball on making it harder to master. Please keep in mind that there were also tournaments and a foreign scene in the early days of SC/BW. Do you remember when Blizzard had their own Bnet tournaments or when PGL1/2 were won by Crexis and D22-sosowac? Just because casual players are still interested in SC2 at the moment doesn't mean that they will continue on for long. It is still in its shiny phase. I think you overestimate how much the BW community cares about the foreigner scene. Most of us have become comfortable cheering for Koreans and have grown appreciative of the quirks of Korean culture and society. I, for one, don't really care for the novelty of seeing white people play the game. I really don't think that SC2 has any chance to tap into its potential until after at least a year or two after Legacy of the Void, when casuals have mostly left the game for the next shiny game and Blizzard has nobody to cater to except the remaining hardcore players. Frankly, a huge portion of BW's success was how new and unsophisticated the scene was back then. BW's last balance patch came just a few days after Boxer's first OSL win. The scene was able to evolve and discover new tricks without Blizzard patching them out of the game. The reason many BW veterans are up in arms is because we've seen it before. Blizzard balanced Warcraft 3 with an iron fist, just like they are doing with SC2. They were quick to remove any tricks and counters that players did that they did not design nor think of first. They balanced the game around hard counters. They were quick to remove any perceived "imbalances", even those that only existed at low levels of play or those only affecting 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4. The game was more successful than BW outside of Korea but never really took off and had a scene as good as BW in Korea was. My point isn't that BW players should transition to SC2, far from it. Forcing someone to play a certain game over another game they like better is stupid, and quite frankly impossible. I personally don't care what game a specific person on the internet wants to play. I'm never going to go pro or even anything resembling it in BW or in any game for that matter. I don't have the skill, time or dedication necessary, but the professionals do and that is part of why I find the BW pro-scene so interesting. The last paragraph of the quoted post is less about SC2 as a game and more about SC2 as a community becoming popular. The SC2 community is much closer to BW than say, the C&C: RA 3 community. SC2 is the only game that is similar enough to BW while still being accepted by the mainstream even if only by name (though there are other similarities), so it also represents Broodwar's last hope for a renewed foreign scene. If there's a SC3 in the future, it will not be relevant to BW in any shape, way or form. The entire point of every post I've written in this topic is that despite how we as a community feel about SC2 as a game, we should pay close attention to it and the community surrounding it. Not because the game is made by Blizzard or because of anything gameplay-related in it, but rather because SC2 is where new foreign BW players are primarily going to come from and not from any other game. When we reach a point where we don't want or care about attracting new people to our community (not the BW community as a whole, but rather the TL BW community) or even respond to new players with outright hostility, we've essentially killed the community's potential for growth no matter how small it may be. This thread is about Browder's interview and his side of things why SC2 is the way it is and not like BW. I expanded on that to the best of my ability, because this is a new thread and it was quickly deteriorating into off-topic conversation (which I am ironically now in myself). Sure, my points have been posted before by other people in different threads, but I tried to restate them here in a coherent fashion because that was the point of the thread. This isn't a discussion as to which is a better game or why that may be. I felt it could provide more to the topic than arguing about what SC2 should have been, when that will clearly lead us nowhere. The more important part was that SC2 is a resource, and that if we want to use it to it's fullest to further our community, we have to understand why it is what it is. We do not, however, have to like it or despise it for that to be true. I'm not going to argue as to why BW is better in many ways than SC2 by pointing out micro-tricks in order to convince others of my opinion. That's pointless for the discussion in the thread, even if the opinion was well thought out and validated with examples. For the record, we share the sentiment. The whole reason why I pointed out micro-tricks earlier on was to assess why SC2 didn't include them, or why it included very dumbed down versions of them. As for BW's early life, I have to admit that I wasn't following the scene back then. I was more interested in games that were popular among my group of friends, like Counter-Strike, Diablo II and in single player games. I never experienced SC1's shiny phase. Nevertheless, that is completely irrelevant here. The foreign BW community being the "foreign" community speaks a lot as to how much influence it has. Let the Koreans do their thing as long as we get to watch the games and our favorite players, but I'd still like to share that with people who might like it and never had the chance to because they just never watched a single professional game. If BW could make it big in the West after everything that's happened, it would be absolutely awesome. I think we can agree on that, but I don't expect you to hold your breath waiting for it to happen. The fact that SC2 is still in its shiny phase is actually good for Broodwar. When that phase dies down, we can expect at least some people returning to the BW community here on TL. The hardcore SC2 folk aren't going to be a part of the BW community regardless, but the similarities with SC2 and BW may be enough to bring in new blood when people begin to get tired of SC2 instead of having people go off to play WC4 or whatever regardless of where they were originally from. I know and followed the WC3 scene somewhat casually, so I know how the balance of the game evolved prior to 2007. It's very much the same way WoW evolved to what it is today. The races took turns of being imbalanced and players felt entitled to it because they had been underdogs for a while. Still, WC3 sparked a pretty big scene in China, and is still being played there to this day. Sure, it's not the size of BW, but it doesn't have to be. People still play WC3 because they think the game is fun, not because it represents the pinnacle of a good RTS. The competitions exist because people still want to watch them play out, so the sponsors have an incentive to finance them. That has nothing to do with how WC3 compares to BW in terms of anything. Likewise SC2 is not Broodwar, and whether or not it grows and survives as an e-sport is not going to follow the same pattern Broodwar did. SC2 is unlikely to change from what it is today, and that's completely fine. It won't affect us as Broodwar players in any way except by possibly bringing in more people to play the game we love so we can share it with more people. We shouldn't alienate the budding SC2 community from ourselves so that might actually happen one day. If people don't care about that at all, it's their community and their loss. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On April 27 2011 01:39 FrozenSolid wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On April 27 2011 00:53 ninini wrote: The issue with SC2 is that ppl take it too seriously, just because it has the name "Starcraft" in its title. When it was released I didn't see it as the successor to SC1. I saw it as "just another RTS" game, and I quickly wrote it off because it didn't interest me, similarly to how RA3 didn't interest me. People who didn't play BW are drawn in by the hype. OMG! BW is an esport in Korea! Let's make this game into a world-wide esport! And 100% of the BW players who switched over did so because they listened to the hype and saw a new opportunity to earn some fame and cash. All the BW players who switched over were has-been's or never-been's. Is there even a single former Iccup A- rank or better player who thinks SC2 is a better game? I highly doubt that. Even before the beta was released, people took for granted that SC2 would be an esports, before anyone had even played the game. Think about that for a while! And that's the reason why the SC2 pro scene is so ridiculous today. The whole thing is forced. Blizzard are promoting it only because they want to earn money, and the players are supporting it for the money and fame rather than love for the game, although I guess for a lot of players it's the only thing they know, so in their eyes it could be a great game, since they can't really look at SC2 objectively. I don't know how many times I've read "But SC2 will be awesome in a few years after the new expansions and patches". Well, that doesn't justify having a pro scene today, with a sucky game. Why don't we just wait and see how the expansions pan out, and then we can think about a pro scene if the game is good enough. The SC2 pro scene was created entirely on hype, so what will happen when the hype dies out? While it's true that a lot of the hype was created even before the game was released, and that the competitive players switched over in search of a more popular game (and thus a higher chance of being able to go pro), SC2 did manage to catch the eye of players from nearly every RTS, even those who used to not like BW. The game was designed to be as appealing as possible, so this was to be expected. When lots of people started supporting the game, sponsors took note of both the name and the interest. With all the money that's in SC2 so far, trust me, the players are looking at SC2 very objectively. The idea of what's fun and what's not is very subjective. Perhaps the pros like the new gameplay for variety's sake. If they absolutely hated SC2, they wouldn't play it. E-sports isn't exactly the most stable industry to work in, the pros have to like playing the game or else they could never find the means to innovate, learn and get better. The SC2 pro scene isn't just hype at this point, it's real. There's a fomos article here that claims that JulyZerg thinks SC2 is "perhaps even more fun than Broodwar. Whether or not it's true is irrelevant; what matter is that he thinks SC2 is a fun game, even if it's not the "most fun" game. Granted, July wasn't doing so well near the end of his SC:BW career and perhaps he was looking at playing SC2 as a means to remain a competitive top player, but he is still a big part of Broodwar's history, and his words can influence many. As much as we prefer BW over SC2, we have to accept that our opinion is in the minority. SC2 isn't a bad game objectively. Top players are rising in the SC2 scene, and there aren't huge fluctuations in results between bad and good players. Given time, people will figure out the current metagame and leaders will emerge, but this will take a long time (Patching the game frequently actually is detrimental to this, since it discourages refining strategies if they're just going to get nerfed next patch). The professional scene will have consistency and SC2 has everything it needs to be an e-sport. The gameplay itself won't change. SC2 is what it is, and it won't become BW, ever. The difficulty at the top wont come from the challenges in macro and micro, but from other concepts, like mind games, knowledge of game states and periods where your build is strong and your opponent's is weak, and other such things. SC2 is not what we want, but rather it's what we get. It's not perfect, but we have to make do with what we have. Looking at it, I feel it's the best alternative to Broodwar with potential of going big. Then again, few foreign BW players still have hopes of going pro, but if SC2 is successful it may reinvigorate the e-sports scene in the west, and BW may yet have a chance. To be frank, I think that's the only chance BW has of becoming popular outside Korea. We've already exhausted all other options. I did not try to quote it out of context, let me attempt to break down your wall of text to explain why i said what i did. Correct me if i misunderstand anywhere. para 1: SC2 is designed to attract many players, it did. para 2: fun is relative. Proscene = real, not just hype. para 3: SC:BW is the community is the minority. July seems to prefer SC2. para 4: SC2 isnt a bad game objectively. + <some speculations> + <some agreeable opinion on why SC2 is different from BW>. para 5: SC2 = BW's only chance outside of Korea. After breaking the text wall down, i kinda lost track of your point. Para 2,3,4 looks like the typical SC2 advertisement (para 4 also have a few opinions, tho i dont see where that point is going). All in all though, what is it that you you wanted to discuss? What do the BW enthusiast do outside of continuing to love BW until SC2 die out? (which is what we (i) already do). Edit: From your new post: as far as i know nobody in the BW section do anything resembling "alienating" the SC2 fans. They are welcomed everytime they go into Live Report threads, at least until they start flaunting their over-zealous SC2/Blizz fanboyism. New fans are welcomed, but nobody liked the obnoxious, annoying ones. | ||
|
Taekwon
United States8155 Posts
On April 27 2011 08:13 lungo wrote: i just think sc2 is bad... with an very established rts community, pros all over crawing to play sc2, i think blizzard made a bad job making this sc2.. its allmost at the stage i wouldnt even call it starcraft, its a disgrace to broodwar. anyway, i just keep watching msl and osl instead... Totally agree. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
Personally I just have an incredibly hard time reconciling the fact that so many issues I have with SC2 are solved by BW. Not the minor balance issues but the overall gameplay problems it suffers from | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
Really the only reasonable criticism is that it is less fun to watch. And for those of you who feel this way I ask you to take an objective look at what is happening in the west today. SC2 is the biggest e-sport ever. Money-wise, player participation-wise and viewer-wise. It is ok to have a dissenting opinion but at least know that is what it is. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
On April 27 2011 10:03 Velocirapture wrote: This whole conversation is crazy to me. SC2 is a GREAT competitive game. Just because it is easier to be good at the game, doesn't mean its easier to be GREAT at the game. There is a reason why pro players have to practice all day every day to remain competitive. Really the only reasonable criticism is that it is less fun to watch. And for those of you who feel this way I ask you to take an objective look at what is happening in the west today. SC2 is the biggest e-sport ever. Money-wise, player participation-wise and viewer-wise. It is ok to have a dissenting opinion but at least know that is what it is. This isn't actually true at all, the CS/CPL boom of early to mid 2000s was much bigger than SC2 currently is in the west, and culturally SC2 is nothing compared to BW in Korea. SC2 is not the biggest esport by any metric you could use to determine such a thing | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
The SC2 community is much closer to BW than say, the C&C: RA 3 community. SC2 is the only game that is similar enough to BW while still being accepted by the mainstream even if only by name (though there are other similarities), so it also represents Broodwar's last hope for a renewed foreign scene. If there's a SC3 in the future, it will not be relevant to BW in any shape, way or form. But why is SC2 the last hope? You expect the fame of BW to make SC2 work, while the games have absolutely nothing in common except the brand and overall theme. Most of the BW fans really wanted SC2 to work, so they looked at it with rose-colored glasses. A lot of ppl still do. What they need to realize is that you can't "produce" a esport game. I think the reasons why BW was so great was: 1. The team's major goal was to revolutionize the genre, making a great game that was much more complex than WC2. 2. Luck I think it's stupid to assume that the game that takes over the pro scene from BW is a Blizzard game. It's not the tough to master macro and micro in itself that makes BW a great game. What's really great about BW is that the tough mechanics forces you to make decisions and prioritize. What should I hotkey at this part of the game? How do I place my buildings to easen production? How much micro should I do? Is it worth mt time to harass? | ||
|
tissue
Malaysia441 Posts
| ||
|
Anxiety
United States650 Posts
Even Day[9] has been cater more towards the casuals. When he had a smaller viewer base (Chill vs. CombatEX- anyone?), he was much less... tidy? held by rules? I understand that he has a better image and needs to maintain it, not to mention some viewers probably would be offended by his cussing and bear semen, but I personally preferred the cussing/not as professional looking Day[9]. Funday Monday, 2v2 week, and Newbie ___day also seem to cater to casuals. Funday Monday gives him a break i guess, Newbie ___day helps the new players watching, which are all understandable. 2v2 week seems odd in my eyes, and rather boring. I am sorry if anyone is offended by this, and if Day[9] reads this, its not that I don't view you as a very good caster, just that I like your old commentaries much better. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 27 2011 08:13 lungo wrote: i just think sc2 is bad... with an very established rts community, pros all over crawing to play sc2, i think blizzard made a bad job making this sc2.. its allmost at the stage i wouldnt even call it starcraft, its a disgrace to broodwar. anyway, i just keep watching msl and osl instead... I disagree. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
sorry but I get the vibe that your interest in quelling the sc2 BW rage is related to your profession Just as people who don't play soccer can probably glimpse the skill of a good soccer player enough to respect and enjoy the sport... any viewer watching a live game that has ever played an RTS before should in theory be able to in some way admire the skill of an sc2 player. As a BW terran player it is very easy for me to look up to any top terran, but of course when I played sc2, I had trouble being impressed by any top player to nearly the same degree. So why make the game so easy? It punishes the viewer that actually has invested a real amount of time into the game... because pro play looks bland. The difference between pro soccer players in terms of skill are obvious and awe inspiring, it should be this way for sc2 as well. So why not retain the obvious forms of micro that can appeal to everyone who has ever played a game... such as forcefield and blink. Yet also get rid of smart casting, auto-surround and other nonsense so that players who know how to play RTS can appreciate the pro scene alongside players that fit the term "casual gamer". As long as their is already a matchfinding system, making the game more difficult doen't hurt new players. They will just get placed among people who are at their skill level. | ||
|
Game
3191 Posts
BW is the best RTS ever released SC2 takes the "RT" out of "RTS", therefore destroying the "StarCraft name" Blizzard and other companies dump money into it because of an evolving internet market and how new it is, not because of how great of a game it is. Summary: talk is cheap, let your game play the game for you, and let the people who actually like Real Time Strategy retain themselves as a proud BW community supporter. | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
Skill gaps are unfavored by games meant for large public playerbases who overall probably possess a very low, basic, and limited understanding of the game's mechanics and how to play effectively. SC2 is a shining example of this. Its meant for a big audience, its meant to be simple and "fun" (subjective, of course). The main difference between BW and SC2 is the human skill factor. In any professional anything (job, sport, game, etc), the "professional" is supposed to have a huge gap between him and the amateurs. The "top" professionals should also be able to place a huge skill gap between them and the other "pros". This is how literally EVERY successful mass-sport becomes popular. There's a sort of mysticism about how the hell the top guys can be so flawless. It is this mysticism that gives BW such an irresistible allure. The mechanics of a good e-sport should be designed similar to a real sport. Since puppy used soccer as an example, I will embellish upon this. Consider your "top" players such as (but certainly not limited to) Messi, Ronaldo, Pele, Rooney, etc. You try to place them up against "lower pros", and you will see the gap. You try to place those "lower pros" against inter-mural or community teams in lower leagues and you'll see as big if not more of a gap. Just like in SCBW, they have refined their skills so much to the point they can make key plays against another team of professionals. Their skill can cover any deficiencies they might have and they work to refine them even further with every practice session and game they play. For a BW-equivalent, micro in BW is essential because with good micro along with your macro, you can overcome units that supposedly hard-counter your units. Lurker vs Marines is a good example of this. There were so many checks and balances you could create yourself or take advantage of your enemy's mistakes, it created the opportunity for incredible refinement just like in a regular sport. This is what creates an e-sport. SC2 does not possess this same depth unless you're looking at it with an incredibly biased and illogical view. | ||
|
Game
3191 Posts
The reality is that anyone with experience in both, and or a basic level of intelligence clearly sees the difference. Despite that, BW players are insanely jealous of the sponsorship that goes into SC2, not the game or players itself. I can personally assure any SC2 player or supporter of that. | ||
|
Vestige
United States303 Posts
The rich dad's are all the hard work and skill and then the daugher is jsut the pure money and glitz and glam. IMO Brodwer should hvae never been head of the Dev. team let alone be ON the team AT ALL. Look at how poorly C&C turned out. If things keep going the way they are going now, SC2 is going to be the same if it isnt already. people make jokes about 1a2a3a on BW, but all anyone needs for sc2 is just...a.... | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
Calling SC2 a disgrace to starcraft is absolute shit.If you want to criticize it make it constrictive instead of just shitting on it and starting a flame war.SC2 won't be bad forever.Everything changes. @game:quit being such an elitist.If you hate SC2 keep the hate to yourself unless you can actually give some constructive criticism instead of shitting on it by calling it a disgrase to RTS and BW. | ||
|
Game
3191 Posts
SC2 took how many years to release? How many times have they tried to fix it? Jokes on you buddy. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10325 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:19 Legatus Lanius wrote: if he cared so much about the 'sport' aspect he wouldve just stuck to broodwar and ditched this sc2 crap. this is all about cashing in on bw's success Um...duh? That's what sequels are for. You could also say that BW was cashing in on SC1's success Haha yeah, he talked as if Blizzard doesn't own BW. | ||
|
Game
3191 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:08 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Haha yeah, he talked as if Blizzard doesn't own BW. Best part is that Blizzard wouldn't be a company without SC1. The release of SC boosted Battle.net 800%. Just sayin. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:00 Game wrote: Did you just use curse words as an attempt at an intelligent post and then call me out for not giving "constructive criticism"? Oh irony, where would we be without you? SC2 took how many years to release? How many times have they tried to fix it? Jokes on you buddy. curse words were used for emphasis. took about 4 years in the dark without pros opinions..tried about 30 times so far...but so what..try and try until you succeed. I called you out because you called SC2 a disgrace to BW which is as a matter of fact wrong.Yes it is a fact.I got nothing against you personally. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:08 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Haha yeah, he talked as if Blizzard doesn't own BW. blizzard doesnt make nearly as much profit from bw as they do from sc2, and they make fuck all directly from bw progaming. they wouldnt have released some stripped down, gumby-friendly game afterwards if they werent going to make more money from it, and they wouldnt have done their best to destroy korean esports if they actually gave a fuck either people have said it all throughout this thread. sc2 lacks macro, micro, interesting units etc etc. if blizzard wanted to release a casual game to make money, thats okay. but instead they are marketing it as an esport ( l o l) and trying to tear down the real esports scene. so in essence: -bw is a better game -blizzard are fags | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:35 Legatus Lanius wrote: blizzard doesnt make nearly as much profit from bw as they do from sc2, and they make fuck all directly from bw progaming. they wouldnt have released some stripped down, gumby-friendly game afterwards if they werent going to make more money from it, and they wouldnt have done their best to destroy korean esports if they actually gave a fuck either people have said it all throughout this thread. sc2 lacks macro, micro, interesting units etc etc. if blizzard wanted to release a casual game to make money, thats okay. but instead they are marketing it as an esport ( l o l) and trying to tear down the real esports scene. so in essence: -bw is a better game -blizzard are fags words of wisdom! | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:35 Legatus Lanius wrote: blizzard doesnt make nearly as much profit from bw as they do from sc2, and they make fuck all directly from bw progaming. they wouldnt have released some stripped down, gumby-friendly game afterwards if they werent going to make more money from it, and they wouldnt have done their best to destroy korean esports if they actually gave a fuck either people have said it all throughout this thread. sc2 lacks macro, micro, interesting units etc etc. if blizzard wanted to release a casual game to make money, thats okay. but instead they are marketing it as an esport ( l o l) and trying to tear down the real esports scene. so in essence: -bw is a better game -blizzard are fags I've only been speaking of the future but at the present this is so true. | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:35 Legatus Lanius wrote: blizzard doesnt make nearly as much profit from bw as they do from sc2, and they make fuck all directly from bw progaming. they wouldnt have released some stripped down, gumby-friendly game afterwards if they werent going to make more money from it, and they wouldnt have done their best to destroy korean esports if they actually gave a fuck either people have said it all throughout this thread. sc2 lacks macro, micro, interesting units etc etc. if blizzard wanted to release a casual game to make money, thats okay. but instead they are marketing it as an esport ( l o l) and trying to tear down the real esports scene. so in essence: -bw is a better game -blizzard are fags This is a thread-ender. Nicely done sir. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:49 BLinD-RawR wrote: I've only been speaking of the future but at the present this is so true. Why talk about the future like it's bound to happen? Having blind faith in what blizzard is doing is just wrong. With all the community running for almost a decade, they could have at least gave the community something great. The community made BW great, let the community handle SC2, let Blizzard add their shit in the coming patches/expansions, the community will adapt! Balancing games to the point of oblivion like what they did for TFT, that will be the ultimate doom for SC2, regardless of the coming expansions. I mean, if they add something up and still balance it heavily, whats the point? They aren't playing the game! We are! | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 27 2011 17:17 aimaimaim wrote: Why talk about the future like it's bound to happen? Having blind faith in what blizzard is doing is just wrong. With all the community running for almost a decade, they could have at least gave the community something great. The community made BW great, let the community handle SC2, let Blizzard add their shit in the coming patches/expansions, the community will adapt! Balancing games to the point of oblivion like what they did for TFT, that will be the ultimate doom for SC2, regardless of the coming expansions. I mean, if they add something up and still balance it heavily, whats the point? They aren't playing the game! We are! don't worry I'm not looking that far into the future either...I'm just accounting the inevitable patches that happen along the way. I want them to leave the game alone but 2 expansions over 3-4 years...doesn't seem like thats happening. | ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2267 Posts
Competitive : Reaver Micro, Mutalisk control, Vultures patrol micro + spidermines, defilers, lurkers,... Not competitive / no fun : 1a i can understand the mechanics and the all-in-one-group crap... but no highly micro management units?... dude please... how difficult is to make a baneling explode? remove that shit, we want some lurkers... + Show Spoiler + Reapers and stalkers are ok, gotta give them that one. | ||
|
sharky246
1197 Posts
| ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 27 2011 18:36 frodoguy wrote: Just realised that this is in the BW section but dustin browder has absolutely nothing to do with BW, should really be in the sc2 forum. On April 25 2011 21:02 Miwyfe wrote: Starcraft 2s lead designer, Dustin Browder talks about the challenging experience that creating Starcraft 2 was for him. He acknowledges the difficulties in understanding that Broodwar was much more complex than he had anticipated. Mr Browder talks of the idea that it took him a year and a half to understand certain principles to make Broodwars 'sucessor'. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34075/Interview_Making_The_Fun_Meant_Taking_Out_The_Fun_In_StarCraft_II.php What are your opinions on this article? Im not sure what to think yet. It has to do with both games, I don't see why it should not be posted here aswell. | ||
|
lungo
Denmark276 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:35 Legatus Lanius wrote: blizzard doesnt make nearly as much profit from bw as they do from sc2, and they make fuck all directly from bw progaming. they wouldnt have released some stripped down, gumby-friendly game afterwards if they werent going to make more money from it, and they wouldnt have done their best to destroy korean esports if they actually gave a fuck either people have said it all throughout this thread. sc2 lacks macro, micro, interesting units etc etc. if blizzard wanted to release a casual game to make money, thats okay. but instead they are marketing it as an esport ( l o l) and trying to tear down the real esports scene. so in essence: -bw is a better game -blizzard are fags word... | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 27 2011 18:37 Kipsate wrote: It has to do with both games, I don't see why it should not be posted here aswell. Why was he made lead designer if he didn't understood BW at all?? You would think Blizzard would hire someone more knowledgeable about the Scene and BW in general. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
Is there anyone here who would argue that Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, Warcraft 3, or any other game should be worthy enough to take the mantle of THE RTS e-sport in the West? I think SC2 stands in that awkward position right below the shining god that is BW yet still above the sea of other lesser RTSes. | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:35 Legatus Lanius wrote: blizzard doesnt make nearly as much profit from bw as they do from sc2, and they make fuck all directly from bw progaming. they wouldnt have released some stripped down, gumby-friendly game afterwards if they werent going to make more money from it, and they wouldnt have done their best to destroy korean esports if they actually gave a fuck either people have said it all throughout this thread. sc2 lacks macro, micro, interesting units etc etc. if blizzard wanted to release a casual game to make money, thats okay. but instead they are marketing it as an esport ( l o l) and trying to tear down the real esports scene. so in essence: -bw is a better game -blizzard are fags My thoughts exactly. I was really disappointed at how easy Starcraft 2 is. | ||
|
Umbrella
Taiwan936 Posts
I think the biggest difference between SC2 and BW is just how accessible the scene is. I've always had trouble explaining to my friends the greatness that was Starcraft back in BW, as it's sorta a niche interest only in Korea. You have to know the game to understand what is going on, stay up late to watch the games live, rely on translations to even read about the Korean players, etc. Now it's incredibly simple to just show some VOD that has English commentary or just show whatever is streaming, and I have gotten friends and my sister into Starcraft through SC2. So yeah, good for casuals, bad for hardcores. I think I'm the most disappointed in TvP in SC2 as a Terran player. I'm also clueless with SC2's future in Korea as it seems to be growing, but it still can't touch the BW scene. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On April 27 2011 19:14 eviltomahawk wrote: Flamings and SC2 vs BW aside, I think SC2 is at least much better than the other alternative RTS games out there despite not being as good as BW. Is there anyone here who would argue that Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War, Warcraft 3, or any other game should be worthy enough to take the mantle of THE RTS e-sport in the West? I think SC2 stands in that awkward position right below the shining god that is BW yet still above the sea of other lesser RTSes. Uh I think that SC2 is every bit as generic as the RTS you mentioned. It does however have STARCRAFT in its name so it's pretty much bound to succeed to some extent. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
Trying too hard to make a "balanced" game from the get-go intead of an interesting one has costed Blizz this title imo.. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
Aus)MaCrO
Australia349 Posts
| ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 27 2011 20:55 0neder wrote: I miss some old units too, but I think many people in this thread haven't been following SC2 that much... I don't think so .. some here actually follow SC2 regularly .. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 27 2011 21:02 Aus)MaCrO wrote: Call me crazy, but I think if "Starcraft" wasn't in the title, and some less renowned developer had made it, SC2 would have already fallen by the wayside as just another RTS. or it would actually be taken for what it is...an RTS that came closest to BW.Well second...I find Armies of Exirgo to be closer. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On April 27 2011 21:58 BLinD-RawR wrote: or it would actually be taken for what it is...an RTS that came closest to BW. I'm not too sure about that. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On April 27 2011 12:19 tissue wrote: Is it just me or does anyone roll their eyes whenever you watch an SC2 VOD and the maxed-out army balls engage and the commentator has nothing to say but " -AND HEEERE WE GO, UNIT X IS KILLING THE SHIT OUT OF UNIT Y, BUT UNIT Z IS DOING SOOOO MUCH DAMAGE" Perhaps the sad thing is that there really isn't that much more to say. Yeah frankly it's quite sad. I've watched quite a bit of SC2 to at least understand the high level games, and the fake excitement is so lame. I don't blame all the pro players for switching though, i mean why not? Finally a chance to make money right. But it's going to dry up eventually. Personally i don't see a long term stable scene being created. Least in a macro game like Flash vs BeSt, despite the fact they didn't even engage for so long.. it was actually impressive when it got to that point. I know people are pushing forwards SC2 maps to be more a similar macro-orientated style, but the thing is, when it does get to that point then why would it be anymore interesting to a spectator? Lategame ball vs ball with little micro and easy macro is not interesting i don't care how many people try to make arguments otherwise. | ||
|
Jojo131
Brazil1631 Posts
Personally i feel WC3 (especially The Frozen Throne) was a better game. There were many innovations, most of them are interesting (heroes, aura, armor type, etc).. Trying too hard to make a "balanced" game from the get-go intead of an interesting one has costed Blizz this title imo.. In terms of trying out new things and creating more interesting features, I think Blizz hit it off pretty well with WC3 TFT. It added another layer of skill and creativity in terms of hero+item customization in addition to army composition. Really enjoyed WC3, so sad they took a step back in SC2. | ||
|
JadeFist
United States1225 Posts
On April 25 2011 23:08 Rampager wrote: I love both games equally, obviously brood war requires far superior mechanics but both are easy to learn hard to master games. Can't everyone just <3 It's difficult to <3 a game that stole a shitton of popularity as well as the ENTIRE foreigner scene from BW, the clearly superior game and sport. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 27 2011 23:42 infinity2k9 wrote: Yeah frankly it's quite sad. I've watched quite a bit of SC2 to at least understand the high level games, and the fake excitement is so lame. I don't blame all the pro players for switching though, i mean why not? Finally a chance to make money right. But it's going to dry up eventually. Personally i don't see a long term stable scene being created. Least in a macro game like Flash vs BeSt, despite the fact they didn't even engage for so long.. it was actually impressive when it got to that point. I know people are pushing forwards SC2 maps to be more a similar macro-orientated style, but the thing is, when it does get to that point then why would it be anymore interesting to a spectator? Lategame ball vs ball with little micro and easy macro is not interesting i don't care how many people try to make arguments otherwise. Considering that additional B.net content is being added into the game via patches and that the 2nd expansion pack is slated to be released 4 years from now, I think the longevity of the SC2 scene has already been guaranteed to be artificially extended to 5 years. The promise of new content will keep players interested in the game, and the expansion packs should give an extra boost to the scene and playerbase should it stagnate. After that, it's anyone's guess. Even if interest subsides and money dries up, the scene should still live on as long as dedicated individuals like Day9 and others fight to keep their supposedly sinking ship afloat. The SC2 scene has pretty much swallowed up most of the WC3 scene and non-Korean BW scene, so it's going to be pretty hard for the SC2 ship to completely sink with all these players still competing. Considering that it's unlikely that the WC3 and non-Korean BW scenes are going to experience a miraculous resurgence in the future, I think the only real threat to the longevity of SC2's pro scene is the release of another big e-sports RTS to draw away the fans and players. Until then, there are hordes of organizations and individuals working hard to ensure the long-term success of the SC2 scene, and they're not going to go down without a fight even with an inferior game at their hands. Also, although boring lategame ball vs ball is the status quo right now, it is possible for games to deviate from that status quo. There have been quite a few scrappier, more intense matches that go into the lategame yet contain minimum amounts of the ball vs ball syndrome; the entire San vs sC series from GSL5 comes to mind. Granted, these kinds of games are not the norm, but their possibility keeps fans coming back to sit through boring games in hopes that a greater, more epic game might happen. IMO, the best SC2 games tend to be more entertaining than the average BW game. Of course, the best BW games are almost untouchable in terms of entertainment. Also, although I do agree that Blizzard did an arguably better job with WC3: TFT in some aspects, I find that game to be more entertaining when played instead of when watched. The art style and effects sometimes do make it harder to distinguish forms, and the low lethality/high durability of units also may have hurt the spectator appeal for some people. Although the heroes and all the other special features made the game a blast to play, I always felt that WC3 had a pretty high spectator learning curve to fully enjoy watching. | ||
|
Antoniuss
Portugal26 Posts
I love BW, but i take off the nostalgia glasses. You know the answer for the ball vs ball argument. Pointing that out just proves that you all haven´t been watching korea play since broodwar came out, and believe me, at that time, it was way worse. | ||
|
qdenser
Canada133 Posts
On April 28 2011 01:14 Antoniuss wrote: Did everyone expect that a game in this age, would come out, with the clunky mechanics that BW had, the outdated interface, and the same bugs and imbalances BW had? Seriously? I love BW, but i take off the nostalgia glasses. You know the answer for the ball vs ball argument. Pointing that out just proves that you all haven´t been watching korea play since broodwar came out, and believe me, at that time, it was way worse. no, nobody expected a game like BW to be released by blizzard, because it is more profitable to make a very easy game | ||
|
lungo
Denmark276 Posts
for me, spending the time playing the campaigns was worth it tho sadly, this is the end for "my starcraft", which i have been following everyday since 2002, | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On April 28 2011 01:14 Antoniuss wrote: Did everyone expect that a game in this age, would come out, with the clunky mechanics that BW had, the outdated interface, and the same bugs and imbalances BW had? Seriously? I love BW, but i take off the nostalgia glasses. You know the answer for the ball vs ball argument. Pointing that out just proves that you all haven´t been watching korea play since broodwar came out, and believe me, at that time, it was way worse. Ahhh, i was wondering when one of these people will show up.. "Take off your nostalgia glasses, SC2 is still in its infancy stage." there were always some of the SC2 boys who came along and say this. Sorry, but both the developers and players of that "infant" had 13 years worth of e-Sport knowledge to learn from. In Starcraft: Brood War, people didnt even think it was possible for this e-Sport model to exist, they just blindly played and enjoyed and innovated. - just how long do you think it took for people to discover: maynard, fast expand, micro, macro, harass, build order, etc? SC2 players havnt it all learned from day 0. - developers, likewise, had 13 years to study. That they still fail right now is ... disappointing. | ||
|
Weemoed
Netherlands741 Posts
On April 27 2011 21:41 aimaimaim wrote: I don't think so .. some here actually follow SC2 regularly .. I followed it quite a lot at the very start, but recently, I'm not really interested in Starcraft 2 anymore. That is, watching the games seems quite boring to be honest, with a much smaller percentage of actual enjoyable games in comparison to Starcraft: Broodwar. However, the game itself it quite fun to play yourself. | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
On April 28 2011 03:02 ffreakk wrote: Ahhh, i was wondering when one of these people will show up.. "Take off your nostalgia glasses, SC2 is still in its infancy stage." there were always some of the SC2 boys who came along and say this. Sorry, but both the developers and players of that "infant" had 13 years worth of e-Sport knowledge to learn from. In Starcraft: Brood War, people didnt even think it was possible for this e-Sport model to exist, they just blindly played and enjoyed and innovated. - just how long do you think it took for people to discover: maynard, fast expand, micro, macro, harass, build order, etc? SC2 players havnt it all learned from day 0. - developers, likewise, had 13 years to study. That they still fail right now is ... disappointing. SC2 is a completely different game. So experience in starcraft/other rts isn't going to help all that much. I was a decent in bw destroying most of my friends because I had higher apm and better understand of the game from watching BW vods. But for SC2, completely different game means other than the standard micro/macro, build order/timing attacks does not transfer. An perfect example is forge FE in BW works wonders versus zerg, but in SC2 you are gonna get obliterated if you try to forge FE. Timing attacks are still being figured out as well. In 1 year, many builds were discovered but in no means is the game fully understood as much as BW. If you watch PvZ for BW in the early 200x and watch PvZ after the Bisu's starleague win. It is completely different. You will be like "lols, shitty build, how can people not realize forge FE is just better". Developers aren't even from SC:bw/SC. Browder is from CnC and other rts games. An 1 year old RTS game is definitely still in its infancy. A perfect example that the game is still evolving at an extremely fast rate is that 3 month ago, protoss is considered the weakest race. After 2 patches of protoss nerf, protoss just became the strongest race in tourney result. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
Im not saying SC2 copies BW's build order.. Im talking about the concept of Build Order itself took a REALLY long time to get discovered in Brood War (Midas was the first to advocate strict adhering to Build Order, if im not mistaken?). Only until iloveoov that macro was really discovered and developed, Boxer taught everyone what "micro" is. Similarly, fast expand, timing pushes, are all concepts that were developed (by the BW scene) prior to SC2. You cant really deny that those concepts are widely used in Starcraft 2 today, so much that many people are taking it for granted (you even said "standard" micro/macro.. That standard took many years to be discovered, fyi). Edit: On the point of Protoss and their rise to power in SC2 aka "evolution", would a "Marine now deals 100 damage" buff put T instantly as the strongest race? Definitely. Is the game evolving? Probably not. The game should be given time to evolved based on fixed values, not constantly changing ones. Plus, lolbuffing a race to OP-ness, or lolnerfing them to obscurity is neither difficult nor new, Blizz's been doing it since WC3. | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
On April 28 2011 04:11 ffreakk wrote: You are misunderstanding my points. Im not saying SC2 copies BW's build order.. Im talking about the concept of Build Order itself took a REALLY long time to get discovered in Brood War (Midas was the first to advocate strict adhering to Build Order, if im not mistaken?). Only until iloveoov that macro was really discovered and developed, Boxer taught everyone what "micro" is. Similarly, fast expand, timing pushes, are all concepts that were developed (by the BW scene) prior to SC2. You cant really deny that those concepts are widely used in Starcraft 2 today, so much that many people are taking it for granted. concepts may be figured out, but I know what "build order", "micro", and "macro" means but it does not mean it is the same. It took thousands and thousands of games and a few years to optimally figure out 3 hatch mutas into 5 hatch hydras and that took a dedicated pro scene. Many builds like flash's double armory build and Bisu's sair/dt build took 1 person but it required that person. So many builds in broodwar so many timings in broodwar took years to discover like double factory into fake double. Thats why when you said just because we know what micro,macro, and build order mean. It does not mean we can figure out everything in a year. I think in terms of different timings/build orders sc2 only scratched the surface of possibility. Im not quite sure you understand when I brought out the protoss example. Blizzard nerfed protoss for 2 patches in a row. It was considered the weakest race before the 2 patches but after the two patches, protoss is seen as the strongest. The game is evolving. An example is more like terran in bw is weakest race atm, you half damage damage on tanks/marine then terran is now seen as strongest race. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
What i am saying is, after some time to employ those concepts that took many years to be discovered in BW, the game should be considered fairly developed (as much as 7-8 years into Brood War's lifetime), not still in its "infancy" stage like many of the SC2 ppl would like to believe. Plus how do you evolve when half the things discovered yesterday would be garbage tomorrow because of a new patch?. | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
On April 28 2011 04:24 ffreakk wrote: Im not saying that people have figured out all of SC2, even Brood War's meta-game is still constantly evolving. What i am saying is, after some time to employ those concepts that took many years to be discovered in BW, the game should be considered fairly developed (as much as 7-8 years into Brood War's lifetime), not still in its "infancy" stage like many of the SC2 ppl would like to believe. Plus how do you evolve when half the things discovered yesterday would be garbage tomorrow because of a new patch?. Thats for the pro players to figure out. Because the game is so new, there are a lot of "balance" fixes needed because blizzard can't count on all the different build orders that can arise. BW was indeed a very lucky game in that it was very well designed in terms of balance at the start(with protoss being probably the weakest). I mean if you think about it, terran was supposedly the most mobile race (at least according to blizzard planning) but if you look at all matchup. Terran is very immobile with the exception of SK terran. I don't quite understand your first statement. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On April 28 2011 04:35 xbankx wrote: Thats for the pro players to figure out. Because the game is so new, there are a lot of "balance" fixes needed because blizzard can't count on all the different build orders that can arise. BW was indeed a very lucky game in that it was very well designed in terms of balance at the start(with protoss being probably the weakest). I mean if you think about it, terran was supposedly the most mobile race (at least according to blizzard planning) but if you look at all matchup. Terran is very immobile with the exception of SK terran. I don't quite understand your first statement. Protoss weak you are kidding me == | ||
|
Crisium
United States1618 Posts
| ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
In terms of tourney results for BW, toss is definitely the weakest at the highest level of play. I think the only period of toss domiance was the 6 dragon period. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 28 2011 04:55 xbankx wrote: In terms of tourney results for BW, toss is definitely the weakest at the highest level of play. I think the only period of toss domiance was the 6 dragon period. Protoss just hasn't had a true champion for a while. Stork barely prepares, doesn't have a great mindset and has average mechanics, Bisu is kinda not very smart, and can't PvP or PvT, where mechanics aren't as important. On the other hand, we have Flash and JD who have great mechanics, having great work ethic, and are geniuses. If either of these 2 play Protoss, I'm sure they would dominate. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
xbankx doesn't even know what he's trying to argue against. SC2 proscene is where it is now because of BW knowledge applied to the new game, not in spite of it. Any argument otherwise is stupid. The same fucking stupid thing that's been repeated over and over 'Well see what BW was like in the first year!!' 'SC2 is in it's infacy!!' is just terrible logic. Progamers are coming into this game with 300 APM... and understanding concepts that were not even invented 11 years ago. There wasn't even any replays back then ffs. Think how long it took even defilers to be standard, many years. Simply because players didn't have the mechanics to use them. There is no limitations with SC2, every strategy is accessible.. and new strategies spread within hours not even days anymore. Once the over-zealous balance patches stop do people seriously believe it's going to have a BW style long term evolution when the mechanics are so much easier? Once all the values are static people are going to work out the very best builds and use them forever, and that's when you gotta start worrying about the proscene. They are going to have to do some good work in the expansions if they want to make enough variety for when the patches stop. But since it's Blizzard why will they even care then? They'll be moving onto another game, and will have already made their money. We are infact lucky BW stopped being balanced so early and remained in a state that there was huge amounts of evolution still possible, but as i said that was very much connected to player skill too. | ||
|
G3CKO
Canada1430 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On April 28 2011 05:54 G3CKO wrote: NOTHING BEATS PVT IN BW TvZ and PvZ in bw > PvT in bw Best mu in Sc2 is TvT imo | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
| ||
|
prototype.
Canada4200 Posts
On April 28 2011 04:18 xbankx wrote: concepts may be figured out, but I know what "build order", "micro", and "macro" means but it does not mean it is the same. It took thousands and thousands of games and a few years to optimally figure out 3 hatch mutas into 5 hatch hydras and that took a dedicated pro scene. Many builds like flash's double armory build and Bisu's sair/dt build took 1 person but it required that person. So many builds in broodwar so many timings in broodwar took years to discover like double factory into fake double. Thats why when you said just because we know what micro,macro, and build order mean. It does not mean we can figure out everything in a year. I think in terms of different timings/build orders sc2 only scratched the surface of possibility. Im not quite sure you understand when I brought out the protoss example. Blizzard nerfed protoss for 2 patches in a row. It was considered the weakest race before the 2 patches but after the two patches, protoss is seen as the strongest. The game is evolving. An example is more like terran in bw is weakest race atm, you half damage damage on tanks/marine then terran is now seen as strongest race. Oh no! My mothership got nerfed, protoss is so weak. My voidray is no longer imba when it's fully charged, gonna switch to terran. Also, your BW terran nerf example makes no sense. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
Come on, Infancy? It's Starcraft! Don't treat it like it's another game. It's a sequel to a game and it was built with the same structure from it's prequel. You can clearly see the similarities! But I think I know why some people call it 'new', because the fucking dev team removed all the shit that has evolved with in BW like: Micro: Seriosuly, if you talk about micro, we are talking about casters dishing great damage but also vulnerable to damage yet with great micro, you can almost dodge those incoming attacks to the casters you are microing or or or killing a zealot with 4 zerglings without losing any zerglings, try doing that!. Look at Flash, Zero, Action, Kal, and Bisu today, you will know what I'm talking about. Nothing really special about that except TRY MICROING A UNIT WITH A DUMB AI! Macro: Try pumping units from 24 gates, no, make that 12 gates instead. Now upon taking another expo, try pumping from 16 gates. You will notice it gets harder from 12 to 16. Now, proceed to SC2! try macroing from 8 gates, after taking another expo, try macroing from 13 gates, there is hardly any difference at all! Holy fucking MBS. Maybe a Chimp can macro like Best in SC2. Star Sense: Seriously, Sensory tower? WTF is that? This is literally spoon feeding the players on what was suppose to be a real talent by dedicated players. WTF? | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
On April 28 2011 05:21 infinity2k9 wrote: SC2 they are trying to balance at all levels though, in which case P would likely be nerfed by the way they are currently doing things. xbankx doesn't even know what he's trying to argue against. SC2 proscene is where it is now because of BW knowledge applied to the new game, not in spite of it. Any argument otherwise is stupid. The same fucking stupid thing that's been repeated over and over 'Well see what BW was like in the first year!!' 'SC2 is in it's infacy!!' is just terrible logic. Progamers are coming into this game with 300 APM... and understanding concepts that were not even invented 11 years ago. There wasn't even any replays back then ffs. Think how long it took even defilers to be standard, many years. Simply because players didn't have the mechanics to use them. There is no limitations with SC2, every strategy is accessible.. and new strategies spread within hours not even days anymore. Once the over-zealous balance patches stop do people seriously believe it's going to have a BW style long term evolution when the mechanics are so much easier? Once all the values are static people are going to work out the very best builds and use them forever, and that's when you gotta start worrying about the proscene. They are going to have to do some good work in the expansions if they want to make enough variety for when the patches stop. But since it's Blizzard why will they even care then? They'll be moving onto another game, and will have already made their money. We are infact lucky BW stopped being balanced so early and remained in a state that there was huge amounts of evolution still possible, but as i said that was very much connected to player skill too. I think SC2 started following BWstyle then evolved into its own style now. I mean at the beginning of sc2. People where just using BW builds 15 hatch 14 pool, forge fe, hydra-rush to break forge fe, 2 gate(kinda old school), and hellion+tanks versus toss. Now days there is almost no more build order that resemebles bw. The standard fe is now 3 gate into expansion using sentry to defend. Zerg now go for pool first most of the time. Forge expand is no longer viable or at least very risky(baneling bust or roach allin). Tank+hellion is not used anymore. Even races have exchanged rolls. Terran is now a more mobile race and toss is considered the big ball race(compared to dragoons+zealots versus tanks+vultures). There is no such thing as a best build. As the metagame evolve, so does builds. 2 fact was considered a very strong tvp build once upon a time but then it got weaker and weaker and now is seen as an all in. For sc2, PvP used to be all about 4 gate vs 4 gate now days about 50% of pro pvp no longer resolves around 4 gate. I mean people might still build 4 gate just in case to defend but all in versions are less and less often.Mechanics are easier to play with in sc2 but they are not easy to master. I can spam my ff all day long but my forcefield will never be as good as those of pro gamers simply because Im not that fast and it takes time for my to process where Im going to put them. I can attempt to drop 4 locations at onces with medivacs but since I don't got the 300 apm. I can't control them once they are dropped. Mechanics improvement is limitless unless players can micro individual zerlings at perfection there is always room to improve. There will never be a best build forever as builds change overtime and counters to certain build arises. Then "good" builds will have to continue to evolve to adapt to counter builds. In the beginning of beta/release, an extremely popular TvZ build was hellion+marauder into expand. This build was heavily supported by top players like Trump(at that time he was one of the better terrans). Of course the metagame at that time, zerg was always starting with roach(this was a time when roach is already 2 supply). Roach was considered the best opening as it is relative great against all terran earily game units except stimmed marauders. When the hellion+marauder build got popular, zerg's best build start changing to a more zergling defense into mutas which then evolved into ling/bling/mutas. People will always try to create timing to abuse "good and safe" builds. No build is strong at all point of game. If you have extra defense, people will come up with build thats can sneak in extra econ. An static rts game is very unlikely unless there is noone who try to innovate at all and with the size of the sc2 community I don't see how that is possible. | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
On April 28 2011 07:12 prototype. wrote: Oh no! My mothership got nerfed, protoss is so weak. My voidray is no longer imba when it's fully charged, gonna switch to terran. Also, your BW terran nerf example makes no sense. The guy who I replied to sounded like he thought protoss was strong then nerf patch comes in then protoss got weak. But it was completely different. Protoss was considered weak, then 2 nerfs came and protoss suddenly became the strongest race. I was trying to get across that point that protoss changed their play style to adapt thus the game state is evolving. The terran example merely illustrate that relationship of something considered weak and now a nerf and now suddenly its strong. It is not realistic and it wasn't meant to be realistic. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
| ||
|
KorvspaD
Sweden468 Posts
On April 28 2011 08:18 xbankx wrote: I think SC2 started following BWstyle then evolved into its own style now. I mean at the beginning of sc2. People where just using BW builds 15 hatch 14 pool, forge fe, hydra-rush to break forge fe, 2 gate(kinda old school), and hellion+tanks versus toss. Now days there is almost no more build order that resemebles bw. The standard fe is now 3 gate into expansion using sentry to defend. Zerg now go for pool first most of the time. Forge expand is no longer viable or at least very risky(baneling bust or roach allin). Tank+hellion is not used anymore. Even races have exchanged rolls. Terran is now a more mobile race and toss is considered the big ball race(compared to dragoons+zealots versus tanks+vultures). There is no such thing as a best build. As the metagame evolve, so does builds. 2 fact was considered a very strong tvp build once upon a time but then it got weaker and weaker and now is seen as an all in. For sc2, PvP used to be all about 4 gate vs 4 gate now days about 50% of pro pvp no longer resolves around 4 gate. I mean people might still build 4 gate just in case to defend but all in versions are less and less often.Mechanics are easier to play with in sc2 but they are not easy to master. I can spam my ff all day long but my forcefield will never be as good as those of pro gamers simply because Im not that fast and it takes time for my to process where Im going to put them. I can attempt to drop 4 locations at onces with medivacs but since I don't got the 300 apm. I can't control them once they are dropped. Mechanics improvement is limitless unless players can micro individual zerlings at perfection there is always room to improve. There will never be a best build forever as builds change overtime and counters to certain build arises. Then "good" builds will have to continue to evolve to adapt to counter builds. In the beginning of beta/release, an extremely popular TvZ build was hellion+marauder into expand. This build was heavily supported by top players like Trump(at that time he was one of the better terrans). Of course the metagame at that time, zerg was always starting with roach(this was a time when roach is already 2 supply). Roach was considered the best opening as it is relative great against all terran earily game units except stimmed marauders. When the hellion+marauder build got popular, zerg's best build start changing to a more zergling defense into mutas which then evolved into ling/bling/mutas. People will always try to create timing to abuse "good and safe" builds. No build is strong at all point of game. If you have extra defense, people will come up with build thats can sneak in extra econ. An static rts game is very unlikely unless there is noone who try to innovate at all and with the size of the sc2 community I don't see how that is possible. Seriously, just stop. How many times do we have to explain the same thing before you get it? Were not talking about actual build orders, but rather about "the concept" of a build order. Spewing out a bunch of random examples from bw/sc2 does absolutely nothing for this discussion. No one is saying sc2 wont evolve at all, were just saying its not really as "infant" as some of you seem to think. All RTS released from now on will have these concepts from the get go, and they took years and years do be developed by bw. And again, I'm NOT talking about an actual build order!!!! | ||
|
erin[go]bragh
United States815 Posts
No amount of evolution is going to make the Colossus an exciting unit. No change in the meta game are going to suddenly make it hard to macro off of any number of bases. No new build orders are going to stop a 200/200 army from occupying the same space on the map as 10 units in Broodwar. And nothing is going to change the fact that almost every engagement is going to be decided 90% by unit comp, 10% other factors. Blizzard made a great game for casuals. Thats fine. But as far as being on the outside looking in, the game is fundamentally flawed. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On April 28 2011 08:38 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: I think you guys might be misreading what Browder is saying by "fun." I think by fun, he means gimmicky things that are like cool random abilities but don't really add to the functionality or balance of units. I mean, look at all those insane abilities the mothership had in the very early stages of the beta. A lot of people are reading a bit too much into the specific route they are balancing the game, as opposed to just his general clash in philosophy in "command and conquer with hundreds of random unit types that look cool and do crazy shit!" to "balance and simplicity!" Browder himself said they never thought players would use blink to jump cliffs. Or that they even considered removing the archon? Its okay to have zero faith in the SC2 design team. | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
On April 28 2011 08:49 KorvspaD wrote: Seriously, just stop. How many times do we have to explain the same thing before you get it? Were not talking about actual build orders, but rather about "the concept" of a build order. Spewing out a bunch of random examples from bw/sc2 does absolutely nothing for this discussion. No one is saying sc2 wont evolve at all, were just saying its not really as "infant" as some of you seem to think. All RTS released from now on will have these concepts from the get go, and they took years and years do be developed by bw. And again, I'm NOT talking about an actual build order!!!! Knowing the concept of a build order does not make it so that the game is way past its infancy. Build orders have been around for ages, I mean I bought sc1 when it first came out and when I talk to my friends about it " I will say, I go gateway at 12 supply and another at 13-14 supply" That is a build order right there and this was even before sc:bw came out. Maybe people haven't termed "build order" but every RTS people have know there is a good way to use minerals. I never looked at a wc3 strat forum in my life, but when I started playing it after a few games, I can easily know when to put down a farm. Just having the concept of build order maens absolutely nothing in the development of a game else any game that came after people started using the word "build order" is already past its infancy which makes no sense. I think the development of gameplay, builds, and timing is an better indicator of how much a game developed. If I see a timeline of how "standard" protoss build transitioned from in the early 2004-2009, I can see there was a lot of changes and development to the race and how it evolved. But if you just show me a timeline with a few line "midas coined build order 2006, iLoveOOV shows macro style 2003", I would go wtf. Hell when I was in elementry school and playing age of empire. I know the concept of economy/more bases/more production build and that was in like 199x. The concept of micro,macro, and build order definitely did not start with BW maybe the terms did. | ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
Seriously, Nostalgia Glasses? Thats it? That's all the SC2 dudes can come up? Contrary to what you may believe "the SC2 dudes", the vast majority of them, are not actually trying to convince you that it is a better game. That is a decision for you to make. Of course people are going to come into your forum and some will make terrible arguments. Have you seen the SC2 forums? It's fucking terrible lol. You're really fighting a ghost here. I don't think that this thread has really achieved anything. In the end you just play the game, and you have fun (or not). I'd be more concerned about some games not having streams (or at least some LR threads have said this I think), because that's where you're going to get new blood if anywhere. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 28 2011 09:58 Redmark wrote: Contrary to what you may believe "the SC2 dudes", the vast majority of them, are not actually trying to convince you that it is a better game. That is a decision for you to make. Of course people are going to come into your forum and some will make terrible arguments. Have you seen the SC2 forums? It's fucking terrible lol. You're really fighting a ghost here. I don't think that this thread has really achieved anything. In the end you just play the game, and you have fun (or not). I'd be more concerned about some games not having streams (or at least some LR threads have said this I think), because that's where you're going to get new blood if anywhere. See the posts above. Hell, turn a page or two back. And how boring would that be. 'Just play the game'. Might as well not post at all regarding any topics. People here are talking about the comments of the Lead Designer of the game they love. Making a sequel that should have the aspects of what the prequel was known for. This lead designer has no idea of what made BW great, HE EVEN STATED IT ON AN INTERVIEW! Thats the problem here. | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On April 28 2011 03:51 xbankx wrote: An 1 year old RTS game is definitely still in its infancy. A perfect example that the game is still evolving at an extremely fast rate is that 3 month ago, protoss is considered the weakest race. After 2 patches of protoss nerf, protoss just became the strongest race in tourney result. Sorry, I have to defend ffreak's post and standpoint here. This is insane. How do you SC2 fanboys not realize that the fact that BW's evolution took the path it did SHOULD have guaranteed that it was one of the best ^#&$ing games of all time. Even your people admit that BW has been around for a long time and has taken one hell of an evolution to become what it is now; a refined and near-flawless mind-to-mind battle of strategic perfection. If the oh-so-wise developers actually understood SCBW at all, SC2 should have been born into near-perfection. Maybe a few bugs, but with the depth and the strategy that is still being discovered today, you would think SC2 would be a little more exciting. The game responsible for birthing damn near every fragment of popularity that e-sports shares now, is under attack from being publicly released by its own parent company who CLAIMS its for "copyright infringement" they suddenly care about out of literally nowhere. 1 year after the one of the longest betas I've ever seen, the game has utterly failed to impress me and a large portion of the BW community. Just accept that. There's really nothing to argue because I'm sorry but you casual players somehow think "I should have to do less for it to be superior." No micro? Sorry, SC2 should have been at least somewhere close to the equivalent to the SaviOr era by now given the huge head start it got by name and title alone. They even got the guys that gave BW its jump start over in KR playing and it gets nowhere near the level of dedication that BW gets. When BW is played internationally, people *!&@ing fly over there halfway across the world to see them. Our guys are Rock Stars. Even your own top players say: "uh-huh... fuckin' terrible game...". I shall not name it but any good fan knows it. I don't purely hate SC2, it was fun for a bit, but don't ever suggest that its close to BW. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
seriously, how can anyone justify this guy's attempt at making a 'sport' after he did his best to noobify core aspects of bw? | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 28 2011 12:31 sCCrooked wrote: Sorry, I have to defend ffreak's post and standpoint here. This is insane. How do you SC2 fanboys not realize that the fact that BW's evolution took the path it did SHOULD have guaranteed that it was one of the best ^#&$ing games of all time. Even your people admit that BW has been around for a long time and has taken one hell of an evolution to become what it is now; a refined and near-flawless mind-to-mind battle of strategic perfection. If the oh-so-wise developers actually understood SCBW at all, SC2 should have been born into near-perfection. Maybe a few bugs, but with the depth and the strategy that is still being discovered today, you would think SC2 would be a little more exciting. The game responsible for birthing damn near every fragment of popularity that e-sports shares now, is under attack from being publicly released by its own parent company who CLAIMS its for "copyright infringement" they suddenly care about out of literally nowhere. 1 year after the one of the longest betas I've ever seen, the game has utterly failed to impress me and a large portion of the BW community. Just accept that. There's really nothing to argue because I'm sorry but you casual players somehow think "I should have to do less for it to be superior." No micro? Sorry, SC2 should have been at least somewhere close to the equivalent to the SaviOr era by now given the huge head start it got by name and title alone. They even got the guys that gave BW its jump start over in KR playing and it gets nowhere near the level of dedication that BW gets. When BW is played internationally, people *!&@ing fly over there halfway across the world to see them. Our guys are Rock Stars. Even your own top players say: "uh-huh... fuckin' terrible game...". I shall not name it but any good fan knows it. I don't purely hate SC2, it was fun for a bit, but don't ever suggest that its close to BW. that 2nd paragraph is something that really makes me bitter. blizzard set the original template of the game, we are thankful for that. but it's korea and the players that made it great, and continue making it great. blizzard may own starcraft, but, as far as im concerned, the sponsors, the officials, the progamers own ESPORTS. it just pisses me off to see such an incredible game that had to work hard throughout its entire career to survive get torn down and replaced by a dead-end game that is without a shadow of a doubt inferior (for both the players and the viewers.) considering all the damage sc2 has done to broodwar, the only way ill ever recognise it as a good game is if it surpasses broodwar (which it wont, so its pretty much lost to me.) i mean really, theres already a functioning rts esports in korea, but instead of taking cues and hints from knowledgeable people, they just went on with makin the game themselves. there was all the opportunity in the world to at least attempt to approve on brood war, but instead sc2 came out and it fell far short of expectations, even with all the helping hands its gotten. are people seriously expecting it to suddenly become a better game than brood war? its just never going to happen | ||
|
pecore
Germany62 Posts
Although I agree with the points made in this thread about ball vs. ball endgame fights, I do not think it is entirely correct to blame this solely on the game. I actually believe that StarCraft 2 rewards very extensive micro in huge battles, but because of the speed of which battles unwind it is extremely hard to do this properly and effectively. This could be the reason why we haven't seen (a lot) of it in professional play, because right now focussing training on this part of the game would be ineffective. I think when they really get into these deep parts of the game, the possibilities of the new interface, unlimited shift queuing, and autocasting and all this will proof as incredible tools in the hands of professionals. I admit that it could also be possible that this kind of micro is impossible to do (effectively) in SC2 as claimed by some people in this thread, but I kind of refuse to accept that at this point in time. So I think there is still hope that the players will make SC2 better than Blizzard ever could have (At least if they stop fucking with the core of the game every two months so pro players can actually improve at this). | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 28 2011 12:38 Legatus Lanius wrote:theres just nowhere to use your apm. in broodwar, the faster you get, the more units you can include and utilize in your arsenal which results in a more interesting game (since bw units actually had some life and some special attributes that differentiated them from other units.) seriously, how can anyone justify this guy's attempt at making a 'sport' after he did his best to noobify core aspects of bw? Yes, obviously it's very impressive that Flash can micro while keeping all his factories spinning, but that's not interesting to play or to watch. It would be impressive if all the TSL players played with a live weasel in their pants, but it wouldn't attract anyone new, and it would stay niche. The problem is that a lot of the really impressive part of Brood War aren't impressive until you've played BW and thrown your laptop out the window because of how frustrating the interface can get. in sc2, its just one group of blob units blobbing on the other group of blob units, or a complete set of boring, simplistic blob units blobbing on another group of boring, simplistic blob units. If you're not really really into BW, that's what BW looks like, too. And yes, I'm sure everyone who just read that went "Blasphemy!". Because if you really truly understand BW, you understand how subtle and complex and brilliant it is that a vulture is turning at a 36 degree angle instead of the standard 45 for this position. You have to know Brood War to appreciate Brood War. And anyway, here's a TSL Ro8 game + Show Spoiler + Set 4, MC vs Thorzain Lets go through the battles (times are Youtube times on the VOD), and determine when the blob blobbling on the blobs happens. + Show Spoiler + 6:30 - MC a-moves a small army into three bunkers and loses a ton of units stupidly, because even the top players are FAR from playing perfect. 8:50 - Thorzain snipes a pylon and an assimilitor, and retreats. Ho-hum. 10:50 - MC blinks forward with stalkers to snipe a viking and nearly a medivac. Thorzain stims a small chunk of his units (you want to stim less in SC2 than in BW. Medivac energy is more precious that medic energy was, so stimming all your units is painful), and manages to pick off one stalker before they blink away. Thorzain regroups, and chases in for a 2-2 timing attack. Thorzain's army shoots at a straggling stalker as they enter the base, which blink-dodges the attack in some good micro. Sadly, this micro doesn't last, and MC whiffs his first storm, hitting the edge of Thorzain's ball, which gets out easily. This tips off Thorzain that MC has storm, and he pulls back his main army while sending a lone Hellion to the third to scout/annoy. MC chases a bit, but uses his newfound map control to take two Xel'Naga towers and a fourth base. 12:50 - Thorzain, now with ghosts, moves out. The stalkers see this from their XN tower, and blink away to regroup with the main army. MC splits his HTs, and sends one up a little ahead of his army to feedback a ghost to death. He pulls back and loses the initial HT, but drops two storms. One whiffs, but the other hits and does a lot of damage to Thorzain's marauder-heavy force. Thorzain decides to engage, and gets off two snipes and a decent EMP while MC gets a good storm off. Thorzain's EMP doesn't get the sentries, so MC throws up guardian shields and forcefields behind Thorzain's army. Thorzain doesn't load his army into the medivacs to hop over the FFs (as is becoming common), but MC has all his zealots dancing in the back of his army for a bit (both could've microed better, is what I'm saying here). MC doesn't blink away his injured stalkers while they're under fire (not enough APM?), and Thorzain's superior upgrades and streaming reinforcements give him a stronger army, which MC takes a few seconds too long to realize. MC retreats with a small stalker force, and Thorzain darts for MC's fourth. MC flanks with his stalkers, reinforced with zealots, templar, and an immortal (as he's tech-switching). MC doesn't have enough energy to storm, but he feedbacks a ghost to death, and feedbacks four of Thorzain's five medivacs. Thorzain gets some snipes off, and manages to kill MC's Templar which just kind of walk up to Thorzain's army and say high (micro can still be improved, is what I'm saying), but a round of warp-ins force a retreat. Thorzain's units meet up with reinforcements and turn back towards MC's fourth, which turns out to be a mistake, as his mostly marauder army has no ghosts to deal with MC's immortals (when 1.3.4 comes out, the massive ball of psionic energy would also be a factor). Thorzain retreats again, and some stalkers blink in to the healing army to poke and bait. When Thorzain doesn't take the bait, MC attacks from the south with Zealots and blinks north with stalkers to try and snipe medivacs. Thorzain goes back to his main, and MC pulls back to his fourth, ending the 2 minute 40-second long battle, but Thorzain is floating a CC to his fifth while MC is still on 4 bases. 16:40 - MC blinks in to snipe some medivacs that were rallied, and Thorzain's medivac count is pitiful. Thorzain stims his whole army, and MC pulls back until the second the stims expire (since Thorzain's healing is at a premium), at which point he feedbacks 5 ghosts in rapid succession. Thorzain stims again, and MC runs a bit before storming Thorzain's entire army, killing nearly everything (the running was so that even if Thorzain dodged the storms, he'd have to stim a THIRD time with his medivacs basically out of energy, which was nearly as good). Thorzain hides back in his base, and MC decides not to pursue, lest a ghost pop out and EMP his mostly-immortal force, and double-expands while switching to Colossus. 18:20 - MC kills one of Thorzain's bases more or less uncontested. 18:50 - Thorzain counterattacks at the whole other end of the map, which is seen in advance by a Zealot at a tower. MC sends out one Templar to storm the front of the army. As the armies engage, MC gets another OK storm and feedbacks a ghost while sending in a dark templar to eliminate the rest of the ghosts. Thorzain either scans the DT, or EMPs it to decloak it while scanning MC's army. (It's not 100% clear from the VOD). MC's army gets back to flank, but Thorzain sees it with a scan. More importantly, he sees the lack of Observer with the army, and cloaks his Ghosts, which EMP all the immortals in MC's army, reducing them to mewling kittens. Thorzain does "some dropship micro" which honestly conisists of putting 1 marauder in a medivac and unloading it, but smashes MC's army anyway due to a combination of sick EMPs and MC's decision to send his stalkers on one side and his fragile expensive colossus on the other, allowing them to be picked off (micro is not entirely perfect, and better micro than this is possible. All I'm saying). Either way, the casters are shocked, and Thorzain takes down MC's fifth. High on Victory, Thorzain loads his army for a insta-doom drop in MC's main. He digs to greedily and too deep, and finds zealots warping in front of him while stalkers blink behind. He gets off some snipes, but is stormed into oblivion. 20:40 - Thorzain sends some Marauders to snipe a base. MC warps in some Templar, but there's egg on his face when he remembers they don't spawn with enough energy to storm (this game, while good, isn't the best SC2 can be, is what I'm getting at). Thorzain snipes the Pylons, the Templar, and the expansion, bringing MC down to 4 bases, only one of which is solvent. Thorzain runs his marauders down to that base, but MC cleans up easily. 22:20 - MC gets two storms. Thorzain stims to dodge them, but MC feedbacks all his medivacs, meaning he can't heal at all. Thorzain cloaks his ghost. MC has an Obs this time, but Thorzain manages to hit four HTs that were playing strip meditation in a tight clump (I'm not saying MC or Thorzain is bad, just that it was theoretically possible to have played better is all I'm saying). It's not enough, but Thorzain manages to focus down the colossi before losing his units to storms and thermal lances. MC gets greedy, and loses some immortals to Thorzain's reinforcements thanks to a good EMP. Thorzain tries to press the advantage himself, but gets his ghosts feedbacked for his trouble. Thorzain backs up. MC starts sending out HTs for more feedbacks, but Thorzain is keeping them at bay by stimming one or two marauders at a time to chase them off without endangering his entire army. 25:13 - MC sends a Dark Templar into Thorzain's army. Thorzain EMPs to decloak it, but misses (practice makes perfect, is all I'm saying), and even misses the scan (lots of practice) before finally EMPing it properly. MC feedbacks the cloaked ghosts, and blinks forward to pick some off, storming the infantry as it comes in. Thorzain dodges the first two storms, but MC has enough energy to keep trying. Now with a commanding lead, MC moves in and finishes the game. You can also call it "one group of blob units blobbing on the other group of blob units, or a complete set of boring, simplistic blob units blobbing on another group of boring, simplistic blob units", though. I guess. If you wanted to. I prefer it my way. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
ignoring the fact that the play part is entirely subjective, this has already been responded to in this thread. although the act of watching factories light up in fp is not exciting, it IS exciting to watch players balance macro and micro according their own personal abilities. no player is absolutely perfect, so its more exciting when there are people like best around that have a penchant for macro, instead of everyone pretty much on equal footing. yes, ive seen that video before, and once again im entirely unimpressed. sorry, but one game does not change sc2's units being boring and its macro/micro completely stripped down. got anything else? | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
The problem is that a lot of the really impressive part of Brood War aren't impressive until you've played BW and thrown your laptop out the window because of how frustrating the interface can get. This is not really true, i have never played Brood War (outside of that time 10+ years ago when i played for a little bit then jumped onto the next game shortly after). Fast forward 10 years, only watching now, I absolutely love the beautiful gameplay. The many skirmishes throughout the game (something that Sc2 sorely lacks) and the "marching" movements of the army makes it wonderful to watch as opposed to its "blob vs blob" counterpart (yes thats how i see it, i know the poster above think differently). Like someone else mentioned, a 200/200 army in Sc2 takes up as much space as 10 Dragoons, it just cant look epic when it looks so small. Exam in 2 hours, no time to watch the VoD or read ur Battle Report, sry >.< Edit: typos. | ||
|
By.Fantasy
Thailand123 Posts
On April 28 2011 15:25 Ribbon wrote: The problem is that a lot of the really impressive part of Brood War aren't impressive until you've played BW.... Isn't it the same with SC2? Will people that never played SC2 will be impressed by those trick? I've shown my friend very impressive SC2 and BW(a year ago) and they were not really impressed. And they went back playing SF and Dota.. >.> T.T The only difference I see is that SC2 has alot of people currently playing it while SC:BW has alot of people who has "played" it. Edit: T.T Typo.. Me wants to play SC2 with my friends... | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On April 28 2011 15:25 Ribbon wrote: Yes, obviously it's very impressive that Flash can micro while keeping all his factories spinning, but that's not interesting to play or to watch. It would be impressive if all the TSL players played with a live weasel in their pants, but it wouldn't attract anyone new, and it would stay niche. Again, as audience members we don't see that. When we see good macro, we see someone having a ton of units when other people wouldn't normally have that many, based on other games that we've seen. The problem is that a lot of the really impressive part of Brood War aren't impressive until you've played BW and thrown your laptop out the window because of how frustrating the interface can get. Not really. If you watch games you can see how some players are better than others, based on how the games contrast with each other. Appreciating strategical depth is not necessarily the same as entertainment value. Most sports have strategical depth that far surpasses the average viewer, but no one cares about it. You don't need to know that the mike linebacker in american football hit the gap perfectly with the right timing and had great speed on the second half of his spin move to approach the quarterback at the perfect angle in order to bring him down, you just care that someone's ass got sacked. If you're not really really into BW, that's what BW looks like, too. And yes, I'm sure everyone who just read that went "Blasphemy!". Because if you really truly understand BW, you understand how subtle and complex and brilliant it is that a vulture is turning at a 36 degree angle instead of the standard 45 for this position. You have to know Brood War to appreciate Brood War. BW looks nothing like that because there's an increased emphasis on multitasking, small attacking and harassing forces and there's action everywhere on the map. On top of that, army vs. army in BW can have drastically different results depending on the stage of the game and micro. That rarely happens in SC2. To some extent I feel like Browder is taking too much heat here for SC2 when his design team was also responsible, if not more responsible. I feel like SC2 probably had all these cool units and abilities to begin with, but was then pared down tremendously to be more like "the serious e-sport" BW, and in turn we get this half-assed game that isn't quite fresh or revolutionary, and yet is not as competitive as BW. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On April 28 2011 09:44 a176 wrote: Browder himself said they never thought players would use blink to jump cliffs. Or that they even considered removing the archon? Its okay to have zero faith in the SC2 design team. ? I'm just explaining what Browder tried to say, not about whether he's reaching the goals he articulates in this statement. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
The funny part is that a few days after, their was a thread in the sc sections asking blizzard to make bigger model, because it was too hard. A few people said it was stupid, but a lot other people were saying "everybody's not MC". Yep, great mentality guys. An example of a game which show impressive macro are many best games, or flash vs 815 on Odd-Eye. Funnily enough the observer seldom shows buildings. But everybody gasps when they see the huge army coming out. Because they've seen other games before, and they see the difference. | ||
|
zlosynus
Czech Republic339 Posts
On April 28 2011 16:20 kainzero wrote: Again, as audience members we don't see that. Actually, if you go watch SC live, for Proleague they are showing first person view during the whole game (especially OGN has really nice studio). And sometimes, I was really impressed by that - when someone like Jaedong or Flash is playing so much faster than other players. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
On April 28 2011 18:18 corumjhaelen wrote: The funny part is that a few days after, their was a thread in the sc sections asking blizzard to make bigger model, because it was too hard. A few people said it was stupid, but a lot other people were saying "everybody's not MC". Yep, great mentality guys. are you serious? that is disgusting. The whole reason I started playing BW online is because I wanted to be able to do all the incredible things the pros could do. This generation of players is despicable. Its like modern video games have aided players into regressing back into the incredibly immature and obnoxious mentality that they had as toddlers. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:31 puppykiller wrote: are you serious? that is disgusting. The whole reason I started playing BW online is because I wanted to be able to do all the incredible things the pros could do. This generation of players is despicable. Its like modern video games have aided players into regressing back into the incredibly immature and obnoxious mentality that they had as toddlers. hehe this comment made me think of this: hmm this interview makes me understand better the difficulties of making a good game and I appreciate Browder's attitude of making the game simpler to make it balanced. I mean, it is really a miracle that BW works with such strange units as the defiler, for example. I'm sure they will be able to make the game more complex with the expansions. My biggest problem with SC2 is the slow pace and the feeling that all the action takes place on a very little space. | ||
|
Rexar123
Croatia49 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:35 Kipsate wrote: This is factually wrong, it didn't have hundreds of patches O.o. shut up troll User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
On April 28 2011 21:02 Elroi wrote: hehe this comment made me think of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s hmm this interview makes me understand better the difficulties of making a good game and I appreciate Browder's attitude of making the game simpler to make it balanced. I mean, it is really a miracle that BW works with such strange units as the defiler, for example. I'm sure they will be able to make the game more complex with the expansions. My biggest problem with SC2 is the slow pace and the feeling that all the action takes place on a very little space. ah that video made my day. | ||
|
Vortok
United States830 Posts
On April 27 2011 14:52 Vestige wrote: IMO Brodwer should hvae never been head of the Dev. team Browder Brodwer Brod wer Brood war :O | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
The reason that it is impressive is because you know that he is doing that, you don't see it but you know, if Best is pumping out of 24 gateways while doing impressive engaging in PvT you know you are watching one of the best players. You don't see him pumping out of 24 gateways, but you know it is happening. These MBS mechanics cut the good from the best players, sure it is unjustifieable and shouldn't be incorporated in SC2 but you can't deny that attributes to the specatorship. There is a good reason why IloveOOv was famed for his macro, even though we couldn't see him do it apart from the result. A bucketload of units on the field. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On April 28 2011 19:23 zlosynus wrote: Actually, if you go watch SC live, for Proleague they are showing first person view during the whole game (especially OGN has really nice studio). And sometimes, I was really impressed by that - when someone like Jaedong or Flash is playing so much faster than other players.i didn't mean that we don't see it literally but, rather, the process of macroing perfectly is not as impressive or important to the audience compared to the results of macroing. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 28 2011 16:20 kainzero wrote: BW looks nothing like that because there's an increased emphasis on multitasking, small attacking and harassing forces and there's action everywhere on the map We're still seeing players not play very optimally. I made fun of all the little micro mistakes MC and Thorzain made, but there are serious flaws in even the top levels. Stalkers (which go in the back) are faster than Zealots (which go in the front), so a-moving a protoss ball will have all your zealors dancing in the back while the stalkers are taking hits. MC lost a battle that way. If even one of the best players in the world is making such silly mistakes, can we really say SC2 battles as we see them is the best they can be? Not really. Terrans are starting to drop Protoss with Marauders a lot now, thanks to the KA removal. See Topclass vs MMA on XNC. On top of that, army vs. army in BW can have drastically different results depending on the stage of the game and micro. That rarely happens in SC2. Because, as I kept pointing out in my recap of Thorzain/MC, even at the pro level, people's micro kind of sucks still (Zealots behind stalkers! ZEALOTS. behind STALKERS. And he's one of the best in the world, right now). Battles can be decided by micro. Boxer won a battle pretty lopsidedly due to EMPs. : It's just not happening because people aren't microing well. We're not seeing enough really good micro vs really good micro. We're seeing bursts of good micro versus HERP DERP I'M GOING TO CLUMP UP ALL MY CASTERS AND SEND MY OBSERVER ELSEWHERE, HOPE HE DON'T GOT GHOSTS. OH HE'S NUKING ME? BETTER WARP DTS UNDER THE RED DOT! Come back in December for the Blizzard cup. Maybe by then professional Starcraft 2 players will have learned to play SC2 at a mildly competent level, and we'll actually have "high level" games to judge instead of the "less shitty than everyone else" games we have now, and we can actually judge it. To some extent I feel like Browder is taking too much heat here for SC2 when his design team was also responsible, if not more responsible. I feel like SC2 probably had all these cool units and abilities to begin with, but was then pared down tremendously to be more like "the serious e-sport" BW, and in turn we get this half-assed game that isn't quite fresh or revolutionary, and yet is not as competitive as BW. I feel like trying to make SC2 more like Brood War will exacerbate, not resolve, this issue. SC2 will never out-Brood War Brood War, and it shouldn't even try. If there are issues, they should be solved in a way BW didn't solve them, or else SC2 will never be more than a cheap BW clone. BW fans are going to prefer BW, and there's pretty much nothing SC2 can do about that, so it should evolve naturally and be the best Starcraft 2 it can be. Here's a random game from the 2001 OSL finals This was the 6th OSL, so it's about comparable to where SC2 is now (6th GSL), with a few more years since release for players to learn "basics" like macro. You can see two things 1. Long way to go, right? 2. Wow, SC2 would benefit so much from island maps. It's more suited to that then BW was, actually. Hm. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 28 2011 20:31 puppykiller wrote: are you serious? that is disgusting. The whole reason I started playing BW online is because I wanted to be able to do all the incredible things the pros could do. This generation of players is despicable. Its like modern video games have aided players into regressing back into the incredibly immature and obnoxious mentality that they had as toddlers. remember that SC2 did attract immature people along with guys from our own BW community its not surprising that shit like that happens.Blizzard is stupid but not that stupid. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
Contrast to SC2 where everyone can do this and the micro is less exciting precisely because you see it in every game. It's not hard to understand. Now i'm sure someone's gonna pop up and say 'omg i don't care how hard it is i just like the end result!' which i'm going to ignore so don't bother saying it. People ARE impressed by BW play without necessarily playing it (although of course most specators will have played it at some point). That's why there's loads of casual fans in the audience and you hear cheering at impressing storms or even good macro. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
The 'give it time' shit is seriously the most annoying thing on here. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
. Brood War obviously impress the casual audience as well as the players.@Ribbon As infinity2k9 said, stop that crap about comparing a direct timeline b/w Brood War and SC2. All those basics that was lacking then are already all over Sc2 since day 0. Who cares what something "might be" when you have better alternatives right at hand? If one day it become awesome, i wont need you to tell me to hop on the (SC2) boat. Till then, while it remain the crap that it is now, no thanks -.-. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
It's upto the community to decide whether or not SC2 will succeed BW or not,and as a game that is being discovered and changed constantly(forcing it to be rediscovered) no one can really predict anything about the game.Whatever happens you can always fall back to BW since it's not really going anywhere. But seriously does it really not stand a chance I mean it does have 2 more expansions left.Anything can happen. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 29 2011 02:32 BLinD-RawR wrote: At this point it's real pointless to say anything other than this: It's upto the community to decide whether or not SC2 will succeed BW or not,and as a game that is being discovered and changed constantly(forcing it to be rediscovered) no one can really predict anything about the game.Whatever happens you can always fall back to BW since it's not really going anywhere. But seriously does it really not stand a chance I mean it does have 2 more expansions left.Anything can happen. i guess people are dismissing it considering all the time and help available to dustin and co and they still made a rather casual game, so what incentive do they have to make it more challenging? they've seen that there is an inverse relationship between difficulty and sales. yeah, we can still play brood war, but what if the success of sc2 hurts broodwar bad enough that the sponsors decide to pull out? do you really want to stop seeing flash weaving his art? or even worse, playing a game like sc2 where he cant even show it off? for what, a game that cant even hold a candle to the original? | ||
|
Jurassic
Hungary79 Posts
On April 29 2011 02:39 Legatus Lanius wrote: i guess people are dismissing it considering all the time and help available to dustin and co and they still made a rather casual game, so what incentive do they have to make it more challenging? they've seen that there is an inverse relationship between difficulty and sales. yeah, we can still play brood war, but what if the success of sc2 hurts broodwar bad enough that the sponsors decide to pull out? do you really want to stop seeing flash weaving his art? or even worse, playing a game like sc2 where he cant even show it off? for what, a game that cant even hold a candle to the original? In my opinion, a player like Flash could make SC2 as entertaining as BW. We can already see that as pro players get better at SC2, they provide better games too. This combined with the improving maps and balance patches, SC2 has a great chance to become a worthy successor (in time). | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 26 2011 01:07 Roe wrote: idk about you, but I just dont find someone pressing each individual factory and spamming buttons very entertaining. And yet BW players still manage to do that while doing more in terms of strategy, tactics, and overall micro. | ||
|
mesohawny
Canada193 Posts
For serious? I'm soooo confused, I thought games were supposed to be fun? | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
There are a lot of good posts in response to the OP. But what I don't understand the most, is why if he understood the game so much, did he they remove almost all the "OH SHIT" moments that made BW so tense to watch... this is mainly thing like Lurkers, Scarabs, and Spider Mines to replace them with maybe only the Baneling- which is scarcely as exciting. The other comment on the first page I'd like to echo is about removing the high micro effects from the game and replacing them with A-Move units like the Marauder, Viking, Colossus, Immortal, and Roach. Also, the lack of High Ground advantage and the reduction in defenders advantage makes base trades far more likely, especially when coupled with 1 hotkey (army) syndrome (though that isn't 100% the designs fault). Now add that to the fact that their aren't the high risk units still in the game that would allow for dramatic shifts back and forth in the lead- I don't really see what they thought would make it as exciting. edit: As a stand alone game, SC2 is great and I love to play it. It buries almost all other RTS games 100%. But, IMHO, it is still no BroodWar2 by a long shot. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 29 2011 02:13 infinity2k9 wrote: Also Ribbon why are you even trying to compare to a game from 2001, how many fucking times does it need to be said that BW experience DIRECTLY helps SC2 players. No it really doesn't. They're different games, you know. Warcraft 3 players were able to transfer to SC2 with a decent bit of success, and Warcraft 3 has only a passing resemblance at best to economy-based RTSes like SC/SC2. people are going into the game with immediate knowledge of RTS fundamentals and great mechanics. This is the most irritating fallacy that people on this forum constantly repeat. Stop comparing it to back then, it's completely stupid. You admit people didn't even understand the concept of a 'macro' game back then, then you compare it to SC2 today, it's retarded. Then you got xbankx spawing a whole page of shit about build orders when the only point was that BW back then didn't even have this concept properly. The 'give it time' shit is seriously the most annoying thing on here. Calm down, bro. Next to nothing from BW transfers directly to SC2 in any meaningful way. If it did, then SC2 would be almost exactly like BW, and you wouldn't be complaining. All the micro is different. The macro is different. It's WILDLY different, in fact. The economy management is entirely different, and thus nothing from BW follows naturally. I mean, for god's sake, MC is the best Protoss in the world and I caught him putting his zealots in the back and clumping his Templar, so don't tell me people are playing SC2 at the highest levels. What, and give me a specific example did BW players not know in 2001 that they can apply directly to SC2? | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
Seriously, how can people argue with a straight face that the many concepts discovered by Brood War doesnt apply in Sc2 at all? >.< | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:44 Ribbon wrote: No it really doesn't. They're different games, you know. Warcraft 3 players were able to transfer to SC2 with a decent bit of success, and Warcraft 3 has only a passing resemblance at best to economy-based RTSes like SC/SC2. Calm down, bro. Next to nothing from BW transfers directly to SC2 in any meaningful way. If it did, then SC2 would be almost exactly like BW, and you wouldn't be complaining. All the micro is different. The macro is different. It's WILDLY different, in fact. The economy management is entirely different, and thus nothing from BW follows naturally. I mean, for god's sake, MC is the best Protoss in the world and I caught him putting his zealots in the back and clumping his Templar, so don't tell me people are playing SC2 at the highest levels. What, and give me a specific example did BW players not know in 2001 that they can apply directly to SC2? iloveoov is credited with the macro era of BW. He is 2 years post 2001. GTFO of my house =] | ||
|
Ideas
United States8088 Posts
On April 29 2011 02:57 Jurassic wrote: In my opinion, a player like Flash could make SC2 as entertaining as BW. We can already see that as pro players get better at SC2, they provide better games too. This combined with the improving maps and balance patches, SC2 has a great chance to become a worthy successor (in time). SC2 is such a boring game that not even boxer can play an entertaining game :\ | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:44 Ribbon wrote: No it really doesn't. They're different games, you know. Warcraft 3 players were able to transfer to SC2 with a decent bit of success, and Warcraft 3 has only a passing resemblance at best to economy-based RTSes like SC/SC2. Calm down, bro. Next to nothing from BW transfers directly to SC2 in any meaningful way. If it did, then SC2 would be almost exactly like BW, and you wouldn't be complaining. All the micro is different. The macro is different. It's WILDLY different, in fact. The economy management is entirely different, and thus nothing from BW follows naturally. I mean, for god's sake, MC is the best Protoss in the world and I caught him putting his zealots in the back and clumping his Templar, so don't tell me people are playing SC2 at the highest levels. What, and give me a specific example did BW players not know in 2001 that they can apply directly to SC2? do you seriously think that mouse and keyboard speed would not transfer over from bw to sc2? as in a fast person with high apm couldnt control his army and access his base faster than a normal person? "Next to nothing from BW transfers directly to SC2 in any meaningful way. If it did, then SC2 would be almost exactly like BW" yeah, its just total coincidence that all the ex-bw players that switched over havent embarassed themselves at sc2 yet (excluding the embarassment of actually playing sc2 of course.) going by your logic, MC beginning his career in sc2 would have been of equal competitiveness to a 15 year old boy who has never played an rts before | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
And if BW didn't directly transfer to SC2, we'd be seeing Warcraft 3 players like Moon and Lyn being able to compete in major tournaments, and that'd be absurd! On April 29 2011 13:23 Legatus Lanius wrote: "Next to nothing from BW transfers directly to SC2 in any meaningful way. If it did, then SC2 would be almost exactly like BW" yeah, its just total coincidence that all the ex-bw players that switched over havent embarassed themselves at sc2 yet (excluding the embarassment of actually playing sc2 of course.) going by your logic, MC beginning his career in sc2 would have been of equal competitiveness to a 15 year old boy who has never played an rts before Exactly! A 15-year-old with no progaming experience competing in the GSL?! That'd be  Creator! I mean, absurd! I don't know why I said Creator. That's the kind of name a 14-year-old with no progaming experience before SC2 playing in a GSL would have, and that's a stupid concept to which I'll give no further thought. And we know, of course, that players are playing optimally. Why, if I did a long recap of a highly-rated game between two top players in the TSL a few pages back, I probably couldn't even find enough horrific micro mistakes to make a lame running gag out of! There's no way the skill ceiling hasn't been reached! I suppose I'll just have to accept that SC2 is totally mapped out thanks to Brood War. I bet Bisu figured out the optimal number of chrono boosts to spend on his warp gate research to safely 3-gate expand while teching in like 2008 or something. Even the literally hundreds of wildly different maps used in pro tournaments so far haven't produced any notable change in gameplay. I guess there's just no hope  | ||
|
Yoshinaka
New Zealand50 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:33 maybenexttime wrote: Well, personally I think he did not understand what made BW great in the least. He/they removed all the fun/exciting units from BW (Vultures, Wraiths, Lurkers and so on) and replaced them (mostly) with boring a-move units (Marauders, Vikings, Hellions, Immortals, Colossi, etc.). They also screwed up some of the old units (Hydra comes to mind). Then there's the lack of highground advantage, defender's advantage and positional play. The lack of micro is also pretty apparent, and so is the hardcounter gameplay, very un-StarCraft-like. Not to mention the ball vs. ball gameplay and horrible maps/their ladder mappool policy, as well as the fact that they deliberately refuse to fix those aspects of gameplay that can be fixed (like micro, look up Project Micro on TL) and patch interesting micro tricks because they're conflicting with their design policy... Instead of trying to understand something as deep as BW on their own, they should've consulted some of the more knowledgable players, who have shown that their understanding of what's made BW so great and what's sc2 lacking is superior to that of blizzard designers (I'm talking about the articles on positional gameplay, spells, etc. we've had on TL). All in all, the game is OK (TvZ and TvT are actually on par with BW MUs), but it could've been so much better. I think Browder failed because he tried to appease two drastically different groups - competitive and casual players - by trying to make sc2 play the same way for both of them. He should've taken a different approach - instead of getting rid of any non-obvious features (like Muta stacking, patrol micro, mineral jumping, Void Ray micro, positional play, etc.), he should've embraced them. Casual players would be unaware of them (unless blizzard made some tutorials) and they'd keep playing the game "the simple way," while competitive players would be able to go deeper and explore other aspects of the game. completely 100% agreed | ||
|
dalenous
19 Posts
| ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
also, i said a 15 year old with no RTS experience, not a 15 year old with no progaming experience. maybe you missed that? the point you seem to be missing is that even if the skill ceiling is reached, itll still be lower than the skill ceiling of brood war because the core fundamentals that made brood war competitive and skill infused have been gumbified. even if MC learnt how to control his army perfectly, it still wouldnt avoid sc2 have horribly bland units with alot less functionality and uniqueness than their brood war counterparts | ||
|
Magus
Canada450 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:04 Ribbon wrote: I suppose you guys are right. It's not like players have improved massively in the last year, or that old builds have fallen by the wayside due to metagame shifts and people learning to deal with them better. The average length of a game hasn't even significantly increased since GSLs of old! And if BW didn't directly transfer to SC2, we'd be seeing Warcraft 3 players like Moon and Lyn being able to compete in major tournaments, and that'd be absurd! Exactly! A 15-year-old with no progaming experience competing in the GSL?! That'd be Creator! I mean, absurd! I don't know why I said Creator. That's the kind of name a 14-year-old with no progaming experience before SC2 playing in a GSL would have, and that's a stupid concept to which I'll give no further thought. And we know, of course, that players are playing optimally. Why, if I did a long recap of a highly-rated game between two top players in the TSL a few pages back, I probably couldn't even find enough horrific micro mistakes to make a lame running gag out of! There's no way the skill ceiling hasn't been reached! I suppose I'll just have to accept that SC2 is totally mapped out thanks to Brood War. I bet Bisu figured out the optimal number of chrono boosts to spend on his warp gate research to safely 3-gate expand while teching in like 2008 or something. Even the literally hundreds of wildly different maps used in pro tournaments so far haven't produced any notable change in gameplay. I guess there's just no hope So, you don't think that skill at WC3 could also transfer over into SC2? They have fairly comparable APM and micro... Flash was a 15 year old wonder kid in BW, but the example given was a 15 year old kid with NO PREVIOUS RTS experience. That guy you linked probably played BW like a lot of the kids who decide to try to be a progamer. Foreign Broodwar is by no means perfect, they're not even close to the pros and we all know that. There is no chronoboost in BW, you have just convinced me that you have never watched Broodwar before and have no real basis for your arguments. Good day to you sir. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:12 dalenous wrote: What made BW so great is the people themselves. It was released as another RTS game. But what made it so great was the Koreans and how they viewed and used it. If it wasnt for the poor economy of South Korea during the late 90's and early 2000's then they wouldnt have used Starcraft as a way to entertain the masses. Let bygones be bygones and look toward the future. Sure broodwar was a great game but really what made the units so great is their imperfections, horrible Dragoon Ai comes to mine, glitchy scarabs, heck even the muta micro wasnt supposed to exist. the dragoon ai and the scarab dud issue is not something i would use as a positive for broodwar. dragoons are slow moving and hard to control sure, but having them wander around chokepoints like idiots isnt very good. im not advocating changing dragoons so they have the acceleration and footspeed of lionel messi, just that they arent so 'dumb.' i dont think they intended mutas to be microless, but you can micro mutas without the stacking, which was probably unintended. the stacking makes it more effective and harder for marines to target though. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On April 29 2011 02:20 Legatus Lanius wrote: comparing the 6th osl to the 6th gsl is criminally stupid. both games, as RTS's, are virtually the same at the base. sure, one has less macro/less micro/less demanding units, but its still the same idea. in the 6th gsl, you have ex-high level brood war players who already have strong mechanical skills and dexterity that just needs to be applied to new hotkeys/new buildings/new units etc etc. circa bw 2001, nobody had any idea what they were doing, even noobs like iron and mvp would embarass boxer and garimto back then I feel like the Brood War fans in this thread are being unfair to SC2, but in a very predictable way-- it's pretty cliche. Fans of an old [game, technology, genre of music] bemoan that its successor [StarCraft II, Facebook, hip-hop] is totally without value, a pale comparison to the old days of [Brood War, landline telephones, disco]. These young whipper-snappers (read: SC2 fans) just don't know about the glory days. It's an age old-story. StarCraft 2 is LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD. Do you remember what competitive StarCraft 1 was like 8 months in? When BroodWar was just a gleam in Blizzard's eye? The game was horribly balanced at first, and up until BroodWar was released mutalisks were just ABSURDLY overpowered. Hell, half the new units in BW were designed to counter/mitigate them (Corsair, DA with Maelstrom, Valkyrie). People whined, people moaned. But... ultimately, they were proven wrong and BroodWar was a great succcess. Have a little faith. SC2 is a new game, and will come into its own. It's already staked a significant claim to moving towards being the premier eSport in the world (prize purse, popularity) and is being widely embraced and bringing StarCraft into the mainstream. I for one think that for all the criticism, SC2 is way better balanced than SC1 was 8 months in. Remember when a quarter of the map pool was Blistering Sands/Steppes of War? No one was even dreaming of maps like Terminus and Tal'Darim being added in within ~6 months of release. But Blizz adjusted. That's just one example... SC2 is extremely entertaining, is developing all the time, and is nowhere near its skill/design/entertainment ceiling. Instead of bashing it compared to BroodWar, embrace the ride and appreciate it as its own game. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:22 Legatus Lanius wrote: the dragoon ai and the scarab dud issue is not something i would use as a positive for broodwar. dragoons are slow moving and hard to control sure, but having them wander around chokepoints like idiots isnt very good. im not advocating changing dragoons so they have the acceleration and footspeed of lionel messi, just that they arent so 'dumb.' i dont think they intended mutas to be microless, but you can micro mutas without the stacking, which was probably unintended. the stacking makes it more effective and harder for marines to target though. but it is true that the community made broodwar what it is,exactly why I said that whatever the designer does the community always figure out how to pull through. the give it time argument is not for the the developers side...its for the community side. example PvP in SC2 is as retarded ZvZ in BW,but these days I'm seeing that the pros are figuring out how to effectively counter the 4gate madness and are now succeeding(if only  great does the same with ZvZ in BW :p),but blizzard keeps screwing with everything that pros do in the name of casuals by making drastic changes to the game.bottom line once Blizzard slows down on patches and lets the community do stuff instead of caving to the noobs SC2 will become a better game. also in SC2 pros are proving the noobs that ball on ball is absolutely useless because the weaker composition will always lose but a more positional play makes even the weakest composition look super strong,especially July. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:37 BLinD-RawR wrote: but it is true that the community made broodwar what it is,exactly why I said that whatever the designer does the community always figure out how to pull through. the give it time argument is not for the the developers side...its for the community side. example PvP in SC2 is as retarded ZvZ in BW,but these days I'm seeing that the pros are figuring out how to effectively counter the 4gate madness and are now succeeding(if only great does the same with ZvZ in BW :p),but blizzard keeps screwing with everything that pros do in the name of casuals by making drastic changes to the game.bottom line once Blizzard slows down on patches and lets the community do stuff instead of caving to the noobs SC2 will become a better game. also in SC2 pros are proving the noobs that ball on ball is absolutely useless because the weaker composition will always lose but a more positional play makes even the weakest composition look super strong,especially July. Exactly-- positional play like Huk vs. JulyZerg on Crossfire in the most recent GSL Ro32 shows how ball vs. ball play is a symptom of how young the game is, not the game itself. July threatened to tear Huk apart by moving to counter-attack every time Huk even thought about attacking July. Beautiful play. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
are you people being this stupid on purpose, just to piss me off? you are comparing: -a game in 1999 in which there were no rts esport/underdeveloped esports scene with a severe lack of skilled, knowledgeable players to -a game in 2011 that was built on the back of a thriving esport with hundreds of competitive players with a very deep understanding of rts games, balance and competition. there are thousands of threads discussing balance in sc2, analysing units and build orders. fuck, there's even a youtube segment based on the discussion of imbalance. if you cant see a difference between those two scenarios and their balance evolution, i dont know what to say to you. its impossible to compare them. if warcraft 2 was an esport comparable to the current brood war scene, you'd bet your ass that starcraft wouldve been analysed at the rate sc2 is now. But... ultimately, they were proven wrong and BroodWar was a great succcess. Have a little faith. SC2 is a new game, and will come into its own. It's already staked a significant claim to moving towards being the premier eSport in the world (prize purse, popularity) and is being widely embraced and bringing StarCraft into the mainstream. I for one think that for all the criticism, SC2 is way better balanced than SC1 was 8 months in. yes, the game is new and there are changes, but its fundamentally the same game with the same concepts. like i said earlier, sc2 is expected to be more balanced than starcraft 1 was a year in because of all the knowledgeable and skilled analysis that has been going on - something that original brood war did not have. idgaf if it is becoming the premier (foreign) esport. would you embrace red alert 1 becoming the premier esport too? no, because its a shitty game, and sc2 is still far below brood war, despite riding the success of the original and having all the time and power in the world to improve upon it, make it better, address balance issues etc etc. and people STILL make posts about how its more balanced than brood war was in it's infancy, good lord im sorry, but i cant find starcraft 2 'extremely entertaining.' even if you discount the inherent problems like gumbified macro/micro, boring units, indecipherable graphics, the korean bw scene is much, much more entertaining. maybe sc2 hasnt reached its skill ceiling, but the competitive components i mentioned before have been so badly bludgeoned by blizzard that it wont even match current brood war even if sc2 players were totally maxed out | ||
|
YoungNeil
Canada328 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:17 Magus wrote: So, you don't think that skill at WC3 could also transfer over into SC2? They have fairly comparable APM and micro... Flash was a 15 year old wonder kid in BW, but the example given was a 15 year old kid with NO PREVIOUS RTS experience. That guy you linked probably played BW like a lot of the kids who decide to try to be a progamer. Foreign Broodwar is by no means perfect, they're not even close to the pros and we all know that. There is no chronoboost in BW, you have just convinced me that you have never watched Broodwar before and have no real basis for your arguments. Good day to you sir. There are also no Warp Gates in Brood War - I feel comfortable saying that he was being sarcastic. He's trying to push the argument that BW experience does not translate directly to SCII, but he's using an unreasonably specific example to do so. I don't blame you for missing that, it wasn't exactly a stellar point. Really, just because BW players didn't come to SCII with specific builds doesn't mean that they weren't helped immensely by their experience. The overall tactics of the games are not entirely dissimilar, and being a BW player really teaches one how to think properly about all economy-centred RTS games. The fact that SCII shares many units and other archetypes with BW makes the experience even more relevant. The point about CreatorPrime is also silly. Nobody is saying that non-BW players can't be good at the game, just that knowledge taken from a decade of BW progaming has advanced the state of SCII far beyond where BW was 8 months into the development of its professional scene. Even new players like Creator benefit hugely from the BW experience of others - simply put, players approaching SCII know where to begin, what an effective strategy should achieve, applications of certain kinds of tactics (melee units, drops, healing, siege tanks, etc.), and far more. To say that new players like Creator don't benefit from the experience of others in BW scene is like saying that Flash didn't benefit from the developments in the BW scene that preceeded him. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:37 BLinD-RawR wrote: but it is true that the community made broodwar what it is,exactly why I said that whatever the designer does the community always figure out how to pull through. the give it time argument is not for the the developers side...its for the community side. example PvP in SC2 is as retarded ZvZ in BW,but these days I'm seeing that the pros are figuring out how to effectively counter the 4gate madness and are now succeeding(if only great does the same with ZvZ in BW :p),but blizzard keeps screwing with everything that pros do in the name of casuals by making drastic changes to the game.bottom line once Blizzard slows down on patches and lets the community do stuff instead of caving to the noobs SC2 will become a better game. also in SC2 pros are proving the noobs that ball on ball is absolutely useless because the weaker composition will always lose but a more positional play makes even the weakest composition look super strong,especially July. even if blob v blob is somehow eliminated, what about all the other problems? this game just lacks interesting units. compare the utility of a vulture vs a hellion or whatever their sc2 counterpart is. what about the goofed macro? or the micro? | ||
|
palexhur
Colombia730 Posts
| ||
|
jellyfish
United States149 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:29 Snaphoo wrote: I feel like the Brood War fans in this thread are being unfair to SC2, but in a very predictable way-- it's pretty cliche. Fans of an old [game, technology, genre of music] bemoan that its successor [StarCraft II, Facebook, hip-hop] is totally without value, a pale comparison to the old days of [Brood War, landline telephones, disco]. These young whipper-snappers (read: SC2 fans) just don't know about the glory days. It's an age old-story. StarCraft 2 is LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD. Do you remember what competitive StarCraft 1 was like 8 months in? When BroodWar was just a gleam in Blizzard's eye? The game was horribly balanced at first, and up until BroodWar was released mutalisks were just ABSURDLY overpowered. Hell, half the new units in BW were designed to counter/mitigate them (Corsair, DA with Maelstrom, Valkyrie). People whined, people moaned. But... ultimately, they were proven wrong and BroodWar was a great succcess. Have a little faith. SC2 is a new game, and will come into its own. It's already staked a significant claim to moving towards being the premier eSport in the world (prize purse, popularity) and is being widely embraced and bringing StarCraft into the mainstream. I for one think that for all the criticism, SC2 is way better balanced than SC1 was 8 months in. Remember when a quarter of the map pool was Blistering Sands/Steppes of War? No one was even dreaming of maps like Terminus and Tal'Darim being added in within ~6 months of release. But Blizz adjusted. That's just one example... SC2 is extremely entertaining, is developing all the time, and is nowhere near its skill/design/entertainment ceiling. Instead of bashing it compared to BroodWar, embrace the ride and appreciate it as its own game. I find it amusing that you're a) using a strawman argument and b) accusing said strawman of being cliche while being the epitome of cliche yourself. Your argument, repeated thousands and thousands of times across these forums for the past year, is that "sc, and even bw, was horribly balanced when it first came out, and all the players were terrible, and bw has been growing ever since then. give sc2 time, I'm sure it'll be good, too!" First of all, I think using "trust the game will get good" is a lazy proxy for actually articulating what aspects of sc2 inspire such faith. Those on the other side have said, for example, that an abundance of one-dimensional units don't bode well for sc2. What, then, is your reason for believing otherwise? If it's just blind faith based on the "starcraft" and "blizzard" brand names, then, well, I think I'll just stop here. But the more cogent counter-argument has already been written in this thread. It deserves reiteration: sc2 had 11 years of an rts e-sport to learn from. The notions of micro, macro, the concepts of economy and base management, multitasking, flanking, harassing, unit compositions, scouting, and so on...in other words, all the fundamentals of an rts have been fleshed out to a science by brood war. Moreover, the pro-scene sprung up globally even before retail, and has only intensified in number and quality of play. You're telling me that NONE of that carries over, that NONE of that accelerates the development of sc2 as an e-sport? I find that laughably naive, or willfully ignorant. To illustrate: I watched a bit of the NASL today, and its amazing that Julyzerg is performing at such a high level in sc2. He'd been an over-the-hill legend for a while now; isn't it curious, if sc2 "is its own game," that a washed-up player like July was doing so well in sc2? Even more strangely, why are all the top pros ex-bw or ex-wc3 pros, if sc2 "is its own game"? It's because the rts genre is only so wide, and even within that narrow definition, sc2 sits pretty close to bw, and maybe even wc3, for the same concepts to apply. Given all this, don't you think that we, as longtime bw fans, followers, students, have legitimate voices when it comes to thinking about sc2's future? | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:53 Legatus Lanius wrote: even if blob v blob is somehow eliminated, what about all the other problems? this game just lacks interesting units. compare the utility of a vulture vs a hellion or whatever their sc2 counterpart is. what about the goofed macro? or the micro? lack of interesting units is something that can be fixed with expansions otherwise the game is literally screwed.I swear if Blizzard does not hire Day[9] and Tyler for consulting by then they'd be shooting themselves in the fucking face. or hoping to god they get it right. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:47 Legatus Lanius wrote: StarCraft 2 is LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD. Do you remember what competitive StarCraft 1 was like 8 months in? When BroodWar was just a gleam in Blizzard's eye? Who are the "great heroes" of StarCraft 1? What great tournaments and perfect balance was spawned? The game was horribly balanced at first, and up until BroodWar was released mutalisks were just ABSURDLY overpowered. are you people being this stupid on purpose, just to piss me off? you are comparing: -a game in 1999 in which there were no rts esport/underdeveloped esports scene with a severe lack of skilled, knowledgeable players to -a game in 2011 that was built on the back of a thriving esport with hundreds of competitive players with a very deep understanding of rts games, balance and competition. there are thousands of threads discussing balance in sc2, analysing units and build orders. fuck, there's even a youtube segment based on the discussion of imbalance. if you cant see a difference between those two scenarios and their balance evolution, i dont know what to say to you. its impossible to compare them. if warcraft 2 was an esport comparable to the current brood war scene, you'd bet your ass that starcraft wouldve been analysed at the rate sc2 is now. But... ultimately, they were proven wrong and BroodWar was a great succcess. Have a little faith. SC2 is a new game, and will come into its own. It's already staked a significant claim to moving towards being the premier eSport in the world (prize purse, popularity) and is being widely embraced and bringing StarCraft into the mainstream. I for one think that for all the criticism, SC2 is way better balanced than SC1 was 8 months in. yes, the game is new and there are changes, but its fundamentally the same game with the same concepts. like i said earlier, sc2 is expected to be more balanced than starcraft 1 was a year in because of all the knowledgeable and skilled analysis that has been going on - something that original brood war did not have. idgaf if it is becoming the premier (foreign) esport. would you embrace red alert 1 becoming the premier esport too? no, because its a shitty game, and sc2 is still far below brood war, despite riding the success of the original and having all the time and power in the world to improve upon it, make it better, address balance issues etc etc. and people STILL make posts about how its more balanced than brood war was in it's infancy, good lord im sorry, but i cant find starcraft 2 'extremely entertaining.' even if you discount the inherent problems like gumbified macro/micro, boring units, indecipherable graphics, the korean bw scene is much, much more entertaining. maybe sc2 hasnt reached its skill ceiling, but the competitive components i mentioned before have been so badly bludgeoned by blizzard that it wont even match current brood war even if sc2 players were totally maxed out I apologize for being facetious about "bashing" SC1; you were talking so absurdly about SC2 in relation to BW that I thought you were trying to be ironic, and so I took your tone. I'll take my own, then, if it's easier to get my point across: You are comparing a game that has been building a following and being explored by pros since 1998 to one that is less than 1 year old. "It's fundamentally the same game with the same concepts" is a vacuous phrase; if that was true then someone who plays BW at a high level could become Masters in SC2 in less than a week, yes? Same game? Of course that's ridiculous; vast changes in macro mechanics, micro needs, unit compositions, tempo, etc. mean that it's a totally different game. If you look at GSL 2 and GSL 3, virtually every game was 1 base, and the most devastating strategy was a marine-SCV all-in. Today, that's a joke; TvTs regularly go past 25 minutes and every match-up has changed drastically. It's far more common to see games get to 2 base at the very least, and it's no longer unusual to see half-map-versus-half-map macro-fests. If you don't like SC2 that's fine, but saying "IT'S DOOMED. I HAVE FORESEEN IT. IT'S BEEN TAPPED OUT ALREADY." is pretty absurd fanboy-ism at best, and just trolling at worst. | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:29 Snaphoo wrote: I feel like the Brood War fans in this thread are being unfair to SC2, but in a very predictable way-- it's pretty cliche. Fans of an old [game, technology, genre of music] bemoan that its successor [StarCraft II, Facebook, hip-hop] is totally without value, a pale comparison to the old days of [Brood War, landline telephones, disco]. These young whipper-snappers (read: SC2 fans) just don't know about the glory days. It's an age old-story. StarCraft 2 is LESS THAN 1 YEAR OLD. Do you remember what competitive StarCraft 1 was like 8 months in? When BroodWar was just a gleam in Blizzard's eye? Who are the "great heroes" of StarCraft 1? What great tournaments and perfect balance was spawned? The game was horribly balanced at first, and up until BroodWar was released mutalisks were just ABSURDLY overpowered. People whined, people moaned. But... ultimately, they were proven wrong and BroodWar was a great succcess. Have a little faith. SC2 is a new game, and will come into its own. It's already staked a significant claim to moving towards being the premier eSport in the world (prize purse, popularity) and is being widely embraced and bringing StarCraft into the mainstream. I for one think that for all the criticism, SC2 is way better balanced than SC1 was 8 months in. Remember when a quarter of the map pool was Blistering Sands/Steppes of War? No one was even dreaming of maps like Terminus and Tal'Darim being added in within ~6 months of release. But Blizz adjusted. That's just one example... SC2 is extremely entertaining, is developing all the time, and is nowhere near its skill/design/entertainment ceiling. Instead of bashing it compared to BroodWar, embrace the ride and appreciate it as its own game. I don't ever remember whining about anything in the original Starcraft. The game was just fun. Complaining was never on my mind. I don't think anyone was "proven wrong" when Brood War became an esport in Korea because it just happened naturally. It was a good game that allowed for competition to build between players and ended up being fun to watch too. I don't find SC2 entertaining at all, even though I want it to be. For me, the most awesome possible thing in the whole world would be if SC2 was better than BW. I mean, even thinking about it takes me back to how pumped I was for SC2 because I was expecting better. I was expecting more. Instead we just ended up with a mediocre RTS and everyone forcing esports down each others throats. The SC2 community is pretty horrible to be a part of too. I attribute a lot of the negativity to how awful battle.net 2.0 is and the sense of entitlement everyone gets from the flawed ladder system. I used to love reading the strategy forums in the BW section. When SC2 came out I tried my best to help new people out like people helped me when I was getting interested in competetive BW. Unfortunately almost every thread was full of unhelpful spam or balance whining. It was really depressing and eventually I just stopped visiting the SC2 strategy forum all together. I'm sure some people just want to see SC2 burn, which is fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I want it to be a success. It can't be a success without good, honest feedback. After the most recent Dustin Browder interview it's really clear to me that there hasn't been enough good feedback about the game design. They still don't understand fundamental aspects of gameplay like micro which is really bad for the future of the game. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:59 Snaphoo wrote: I apologize for being facetious about "bashing" SC1; you were talking so absurdly about SC2 in relation to BW that I thought you were trying to be ironic, and so I took your tone. I'll take my own, then, if it's easier to get my point across: You are comparing a game that has been building a following and being explored by pros since 1998 to one that is less than 1 year old. "It's fundamentally the same game with the same concepts" is a vacuous phrase; if that was true then someone who plays BW at a high level could become Masters in SC2 in less than a week, yes? Same game? Of course that's ridiculous; vast changes in macro mechanics, micro needs, unit compositions, tempo, etc. mean that it's a totally different game. If you look at GSL 2 and GSL 3, virtually every game was 1 base, and the most devastating strategy was a marine-SCV all-in. Today, that's a joke; TvTs regularly go past 25 minutes and every match-up has changed drastically. It's far more common to see games get to 2 base at the very least, and it's no longer unusual to see half-map-versus-half-map macro-fests. If you don't like SC2 that's fine, but saying "IT'S DOOMED. I HAVE FORESEEN IT. IT'S BEEN TAPPED OUT ALREADY." is pretty absurd fanboy-ism at best, and just trolling at worst. how do you expect the game to become as good or as interesting with all the gameplay flaws? in your honest opinion, have those fundamental changes made the game better, and more competitive in the future? | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:56 jellyfish wrote: I find it amusing that you're a) using a strawman argument and b) accusing said strawman of being cliche while being the epitome of cliche yourself. Your argument, repeated thousands and thousands of times across these forums for the past year, is that "sc, and even bw, was horribly balanced when it first came out, and all the players were terrible, and bw has been growing ever since then. give sc2 time, I'm sure it'll be good, too!" First of all, I think using "trust the game will get good" is a lazy proxy for actually articulating what aspects of sc2 inspire such faith. Those on the other side have said, for example, that an abundance of one-dimensional units don't bode well for sc2. What, then, is your reason for believing otherwise? If it's just blind faith based on the "starcraft" and "blizzard" brand names, then, well, I think I'll just stop here. But the more cogent counter-argument has already been written in this thread. It deserves reiteration: sc2 had 11 years of an rts e-sport to learn from. The notions of micro, macro, the concepts of economy and base management, multitasking, flanking, harassing, unit compositions, scouting, and so on...in other words, all the fundamentals of an rts have been fleshed out to a science by brood war. Moreover, the pro-scene sprung up globally even before retail, and has only intensified in number and quality of play. You're telling me that NONE of that carries over, that NONE of that accelerates the development of sc2 as an e-sport? I find that laughably naive, or willfully ignorant. To illustrate: I watched a bit of the NASL today, and its amazing that Julyzerg is performing at such a high level in sc2. He'd been an over-the-hill legend for a while now; isn't it curious, if sc2 "is its own game," that a washed-up player like July was doing so well in sc2? Even more strangely, why are all the top pros ex-bw or ex-wc3 pros, if sc2 "is its own game"? It's because the rts genre is only so wide, and even within that narrow definition, sc2 sits pretty close to bw, and maybe even wc3, for the same concepts to apply. Given all this, don't you think that we, as longtime bw fans, followers, students, have legitimate voices when it comes to thinking about sc2's future? hey jellyfish, I say "trust that the game will be good" as evidenced by the drastic rise in quality of pro matches from GSL 2 to GSL May. 1 base all-ins, lack of micro, laughable control, terrible maps, and short games... have all been replaced by macro play, improving (but still sub-ceiling) micro, far better maps, longer games, and more intricate strategies. What product is awesome on Day 1? StarCraft was chobo before years of pros honed and perfected it to an art. Your point about JulyZerg is, I think, not quite as favorable to your argument as you think. Take a hypothetical: If the US were to create a professional cricket league tomorrow, a massive one whose revenues (hypothetically) dwarfed those of baseball and football, and if baseball and football popularity was waning drastically... if the new cricket teams held try-outs, would it be shocking if MLB or NFL athletes, given sheer athleticism, were the most successful players in the early stages? Could we conclude from that that baseball, cricket and football are mostly the same? Or that five years from now baseball/football players would still dominate the cricket ranks? I think not. Certainly, SC2 shares many characteristics with BW and WC3 as an RTS. Yet to say they're the same? SC2 has its own nuances and optimal plays which we haven't fully discovered yet, because it is SO YOUNG. So at this early stage in time, the people who have a great deal of experience playing in tournaments and with solid RTS mechanics are pulling ahead. But as knowledge of the game improves, and as it comes into its own, those with knowledge of SC2 will pull ahead of those who merely retain good generic RTS skillsets. You bring up the example of JulyZerg and say "how can a washed up pro like July do so well?" Well, I think a similar question can be asked: how can a player with far more recent BW success like IMMVP get knocked down to Code A? How does he lose 0-2 to JulyZerg in GSL March? How is it that NesTea (Zergbong) is a SC2 gosu, doing far better than people who have transitioned over from BW with more recent success as Zerg players? Because JulyZerg and NesTea understand SC2 to a deeper extent than many BW pros who have transitioned over, and even more than some with better macro mechanics than them. It's a new game. I welcome BW (haha as if I had any authority over this matter) fans and certainly recognize they have a voice with regard to SC2. But saying "BW is better. And always will be." isn't dialogue, it's fanboyism. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:56 jellyfish wrote: First of all, I think using "trust the game will get good" is a lazy proxy for actually articulating what aspects of sc2 inspire such faith. Those on the other side have said, for example, that an abundance of one-dimensional units don't bode well for sc2. What, then, is your reason for believing otherwise? If it's just blind faith based on the "starcraft" and "blizzard" brand names, then, well, I think I'll just stop here. I totally agree with this argument and I really hate it when people say "it'll be good! just wait!" I don't want to wait and there's no reason for me to wait. Why should I watch shitty games or play a shitty game just because the future *might* be better? If the future does get better, I'll watch then. But at the moment the game looks really dodgy and boring. But the more cogent counter-argument has already been written in this thread. It deserves reiteration: sc2 had 11 years of an rts e-sport to learn from. The notions of micro, macro, the concepts of economy and base management, multitasking, flanking, harassing, unit compositions, scouting, and so on...in other words, all the fundamentals of an rts have been fleshed out to a science by brood war. Moreover, the pro-scene sprung up globally even before retail, and has only intensified in number and quality of play. You're telling me that NONE of that carries over, that NONE of that accelerates the development of sc2 as an e-sport? I find that laughably naive, or willfully ignorant. That's only stuff IN the game as well. What about outside of the game? People are figuring how to optimize builds with computer programs, they can review replays, and I'm sure pro-houses in Korea have much more refined training and practice programs than in 2001. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
i think its more to do with the fact that starcraft 2 is a less mechanically/multitasking demanding game compared to brood war | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On April 29 2011 15:13 Legatus Lanius wrote: how do you expect the game to become as good or as interesting with all the gameplay flaws? in your honest opinion, have those fundamental changes made the game better, and more competitive in the future? I expect the game to become better through exploration of more optimal play, balance patches, map changes, and expansions (Brood War without Corsair/DTs/Medics would be a pretty sad game) to add in further units where needed to shore up gameplay and fun. I absolutely think many of the fundamental changes from BW are better. BW's skill ceiling was artificially high-- there is no reason why workers should not auto-mine, that you can't select more than 12 units at a time, that you can't hotkey multiple buildings, etc. Those are pre-21st century game mechanics that were scrapped, and I think playing SC2 is much more accessible because of it. Do I regret DPS being increased and "hard" counters making ball vs. ball gameplay boring? Sure, to an extent. But ball vs. ball gameplay is characteristic of 8 month old play in this game. What's to say that it won't improve, that positional nydus play/SeleCT-style hyperaggro drop play/etc. won't become more standard? oGsMC v. Thorzain Game 4 Ro8 of TSL, QXC vs. NSPGenius Ro32 on Xel'Naga in TSL, etc... already we're seeing games that are absurdly epic and showing us that SC2 is moving forward and amazing games are increasingly happening all the time. A lot of people criticize SC2, but I haven't heard anyone that actually is willing to give SC2 a chance say that games like those aren't entertaining as all hell. What is seen in high level play is trickling down to lower leagues all the time. I have consistently seen the quality of pro games rise since release, and so I'm optimistic that play in the game in general has shown no signs of slowing down. That's all I'm saying. Instead of comparing Year 13 of SC1 versus Month 8 of SC2, give SC2 some time to settle and show off its stuff. It took some time before reaver drops/muta micro/etc. were all discovered. We're finding out new things about SC2 all the time. Give it a chance. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
in either case, even if you added automine and easy macro to sc1, the actual characteristics of the units would make it more challenging and require more actions to use properly. | ||
|
jellyfish
United States149 Posts
On April 29 2011 15:16 Snaphoo wrote: hey jellyfish, I say "trust that the game will be good" as evidenced by the drastic rise in quality of pro matches from GSL 2 to GSL May. 1 base all-ins, lack of micro, laughable control, terrible maps, and short games... have all been replaced by macro play, improving (but still sub-ceiling) micro, far better maps, longer games, and more intricate strategies. What product is awesome on Day 1? StarCraft was chobo before years of pros honed and perfected it to an art. Your point about JulyZerg is, I think, not quite as favorable to your argument as you think. Take a hypothetical: If the US were to create a professional cricket league tomorrow, a massive one whose revenues (hypothetically) dwarfed those of baseball and football, and if baseball and football popularity was waning drastically... if the new cricket teams held try-outs, would it be shocking if MLB or NFL athletes, given sheer athleticism, were the most successful players in the early stages? Could we conclude from that that baseball, cricket and football are mostly the same? Or that five years from now baseball/football players would still dominate the cricket ranks? I think not. Certainly, SC2 shares many characteristics with BW and WC3 as an RTS. Yet to say they're the same? SC2 has its own nuances and optimal plays which we haven't fully discovered yet, because it is SO YOUNG. So at this early stage in time, the people who have a great deal of experience playing in tournaments and with solid RTS mechanics are pulling ahead. But as knowledge of the game improves, and as it comes into its own, those with knowledge of SC2 will pull ahead of those who merely retain good generic RTS skillsets. You bring up the example of JulyZerg and say "how can a washed up pro like July do so well?" Well, I think a similar question can be asked: how can a player with far more recent BW success like IMMVP get knocked down to Code A? How does he lose 0-2 to JulyZerg in GSL March? How is it that NesTea (Zergbong) is a SC2 gosu, doing far better than people who have transitioned over from BW with more recent success as Zerg players? Because JulyZerg and NesTea understand SC2 to a deeper extent than many BW pros who have transitioned over, and even more than some with better macro mechanics than them. It's a new game. I welcome BW (haha as if I had any authority over this matter) fans and certainly recognize they have a voice with regard to SC2. But saying "BW is better. And always will be." isn't dialogue, it's fanboyism. Actually, I agree with you that sc2 and bw are not the same game, and that the skills do not transfer directly. I guess where we differ is in our judgment of just how similar/different they are. To me, the games are similar enough in design and intent that the fundamentals and concepts carry over entirely. And if I'm understanding you correctly, the "whole new game" argument starts being valid once we apply these more general concepts to sc2 in particular. But I'll only accept that as it applies to the skill levels of the pros themselves, and the sophistication of the metagame. What about the design of the game itself? I think there's enough of an overlap between the games that we can comment on things like the lack of interesting units. In fact, that and the other things the "bw people" are pointing out seem to be basic fundamental design choices of any rts. That the pros are getting acclimated to this particular rts is fine, but that they've already uncovered some flaws in the design is worrisome. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
Nexus/Stargate/Cannon+3 Fast Flying Air units+one being produced in both examples | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
besides, its a bit unfair comparing the whole set of aesthetics of watching pro broodwar vs watching pro sc2. the korean commentators (for me, the msl ones mostly) absolutely murder english casters | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:17 Magus wrote:There is no chronoboost in BW, you have just convinced me that you have never watched Broodwar before and have no real basis for your arguments. Good day to you sir. Yes. I know that. I was being sarcastic in that sentence. Like in every other sentence in the post. My point was that all the subtleties of Brood War that took years and years to figure out don't apply to an entirely different game, and only the very basic "make more dudes" mechanics transfer. On April 29 2011 14:17 Legatus Lanius wrote: instead of going off on a sarcasm tangent, why dont you answer this? Because sarcasm tangents are fun and relieve frustration! how will sc2 became at least as good as brood war if all of the competitive aspects of the game have been cut down? how will it happen when people cant show their individual strengths? how will it happen when the units are generic, boring and simplistic? Well, I honestly feel the game is improving both due to patches and the players themselves getting better. I imagine it'll just kind of keep doing like it's doing. We're starting to see FF (the key example of the "SC2 spells remove micro!" argument) get countered by Medivac micro. That's pretty baller. We're seeing multipronged attacks more often, and more drops/harassment. SC2 is starting to be figured out, and we're seeing the game IMPROVE because people are figuring things out. The implication of the "We had years to study BW" argument is that SC2 can't possibly have depths yet undiscovered, and that's patently untrue; new and interesting stuff is getting discovered all the freaking time. I'm still seeing gigantic holes in even top-level play. MC, two-time GSL Champion and self-proclaimed Bonjwa (Losira's better, btw), keeps all his Templar on the one hotkey, and has to have a sad when they all get EMPed. He leaves his Zealots behind his stalkers (!), and lost a battle because of it. He doesn't blink micro in large battles. Etc etc etc. We're nowhere near the "skill ceiling", assuming we ever hit it. I know the "give it time" is a pet peeve of BW fans. And if the game weren't improving tons and tons, I'd agree. But it is. When people stop improving and stop making really fundamental snarf plays, then we can discuss the problems of high-level SC2. There just isn't any high-level SC2 yet, not as long as MC can put his melee units in the back and still win GSLs. Edit: I guess my point is thus: If SC2 came out in 1998 and BW came out in 2010, SC2 players would have learned all the RTS fundamentals and stuff, but BW would still look like a pretty shitty game in 2011 because no one would have mastered it yet. also, i said a 15 year old with no RTS experience, not a 15 year old with no progaming experience. maybe you missed that? I didn't say that there's NOTHING nothing to learn from Brood War. Maynarding. The concept of keeping your money low. Clicking fast. That's kind of it. Obviously there's more to BW then clicking fast an APM. I do like BW quite a bit and don't mean to demean it. It just doesn't carry over anywhere nearly as directly as some people think. Thousands of hours spent microing vultures doesn't really help you micro Hellions as much as you'd think.The only skills that carried from BW were the really broad basic ones of APM and macro and stuff. That's why Warcraft 3 players were able to come in to SC2, and were only slightly less successful that former BW pros. the point you seem to be missing is that even if the skill ceiling is reached, itll still be lower than the skill ceiling of brood war because the core fundamentals that made brood war competitive and skill infused have been gumbified. even if MC learnt how to control his army perfectly, it still wouldnt avoid sc2 have horribly bland units with alot less functionality and uniqueness than their brood war counterparts Most Brood War units are bland, too. The dragoon isn't inherently interesting; high-level players make it interesting. And it took them years to figure out how to do it. Years that are completely irrelevant to SC2. Nothing that made high-level dragoon play interesting applies to stalkers, yes. This means no one knows how to use stalkers in an amazing way yet. That's why I compare GSL 6 to the sixth OSL in 2001. In 2001, there was a LOT more to learn about BW, and in 2011 there's a LOT more to learn about SC2. Yes, BW players have a little candle of basic RTS knowledge this time, but they're exploring the grand canyon, so it'll still take time. On April 29 2011 14:55 palexhur wrote: Dont waste your time Legatus, the last time that I tried to explain some of this new RTS gamers what is the difference between BW and SC2 I got banned, they just think that an interesting game is like those in NASL, 2 guys sitting in their asses for long time and then one 200/200 clash and everything is finished. In Starcraft 2's defense, NASL is pretty fucking awful generally. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 29 2011 15:48 nalgene wrote: You could micro your way out of some attacks like this one in BW, but SC2 doesn't allow you to micro your way out of this example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNj0zwthmXY Nexus/Stargate/Cannon+3 Fast Flying Air units+one being produced in both examples Actually, that example is somewhat outdated considering that they added an artificial, automatic "moving shot" to the Phoenix sometime after the video was made. Anyways, IMO MBS, unlimited unit selection, and automining are some of the most overrated controversies of the SC2 vs BW debate. Even if they removed them from SC2, the issues of blander units and other fundamental problems would still persist. If they included those features in BW 12 years ago, I think it would've had a negligible effect on the game's development considering how the units in BW allow for a better playing and spectator experience. ATM, the mechanical differences between SC2 and BW are an overrated non-issue, IMO. There are bigger problems in SC2 such as some lack of interesting units, lack of micro-based soft counters, lack of space-controlling units, and swarm-based pathing AI. Fixing these problems would have a much greater, more productive impact than simply reverting back to BW mechanics. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
From time and time again. People keep on insisting this "some day, it will all be ok.". No, there wont be unless this Lead Dev can get a clue as to what made BW great. Good Luck with your SC2. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:55 palexhur wrote: Dont waste your time Legatus, the last time that I tried to explain some of this new RTS gamers what is the difference between BW and SC2 I got banned, they just think that an interesting game is like those in NASL, 2 guys sitting in their asses for long time and then one 200/200 clash and everything is finished. wow either you explained them by shitting on them or they took it really badly. :p I'm glad I have played BW and have that experience of playing BW. On April 29 2011 16:09 aimaimaim wrote: You guys talk about "optimum play" coming in the near future for SC2 but the dev team is ruining it by bombarding it with game changing patches?!? How, on earth, will there ever be optimum play if you keep on reformatting the play?!? From time and time again. People keep on insisting this "some day, it will all be ok.". No, there wont be unless this Lead Dev can get a clue as to what made BW great. Good Luck with your SC2. yeop,its gonna need a whole lotta luck. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
Game
3191 Posts
On April 29 2011 16:18 Legatus Lanius wrote: most brood war units are definitely NOT bland. the dragoon is kinda bland, yes, but all the other units for protoss (mostly) have their own little niche, and all have different characteristics that stopped them from just being massed and clumped and ram into the opponent. in pvz, all the protoss units are pretty fragile on their own, and need to be partnered up with other units or used in a non-mass way. take pvz for instance, all the common units for protoss sans one or two cannot be massed into a ball (reavers, dark templar, high templar, observers, shuttles, archons etc etc) and work alot better when you use them for harassment or for specialised purposes. can you say, with honesty, that sc2 units are more specialised and take greater care to use efficiently than bw units? Dude... you had the thread with "gumby-friendly game", leave it at that | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
On April 29 2011 16:24 Game wrote: Dude... you had the thread with "gumby-friendly game", leave it at that well if thats what everyone wants, ill leave the thread | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 29 2011 16:18 Legatus Lanius wrote: most brood war units are definitely NOT bland. the dragoon is kinda bland, yes, but all the other units for protoss (mostly) have their own little niche, and all have different characteristics that stopped them from just being massed and clumped and ram into the opponent. in pvz, all the protoss units are pretty fragile on their own, and need to be partnered up with other units or used in a non-mass way. take pvz for instance, all the common units for protoss sans one or two cannot be massed into a ball (reavers, dark templar, high templar, observers, shuttles, archons etc etc) and work alot better when you use them for harassment or for specialised purposes. can you say, with honesty, that sc2 units are more specialised and take greater care to use efficiently than bw units? No, I beg to differ.. Zealots are imba in PvZ. Zerg needs to do alot of shit just to counter these marauding zealots. Well atleast in progames, in low level games though, zealots aren't that imba. Like how Queen is imba now against Mech. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 29 2011 16:54 aimaimaim wrote: No, I beg to differ.. Zealots are imba in PvZ. Zerg needs to do alot of shit just to counter these marauding zealots. Well atleast in progames, in low level games though, zealots aren't that imba. Like how Queen is imba now against Mech. wanna beat queens...go Bio...lol. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 29 2011 16:18 Legatus Lanius wrote: most brood war units are definitely NOT bland. the dragoon is kinda bland, yes, but all the other units for protoss (mostly) have their own little niche, and all have different characteristics that stopped them from just being massed and clumped and ram into the opponent. in pvz, all the protoss units are pretty fragile on their own, and need to be partnered up with other units or used in a non-mass way. take pvz for instance, all the common units for protoss sans one or two cannot be massed into a ball (reavers, dark templar, high templar, observers, shuttles, archons etc etc) and work alot better when you use them for harassment or for specialised purposes. can you say, with honesty, that sc2 units are more specialised and take greater care to use efficiently than bw units? I was debating making a comment about capital letters and their place in a modern forum post, and then this gem stuck out at me. take pvz for instance, all the common units for protoss sans one or two cannot be massed into a ball (reavers, dark templar, high templar, observers, shuttles, archons etc etc I love how effortlessly you elided over the Zealot and the Dragoon, which make up the vast majority of a lategame protoss army. This is actually one of my favorite games, from 2008, before I learned who Combat-EX was. This is legitimately one of the great BW games, and is on my favourite BW map, Andromeda (I wish people on ICCUP played it...). It includes a massive ball of archons, incidentally. can you say, with honesty, that sc2 units are more specialised and take greater care to use efficiently than bw units? Anyway, what SC2 Protoss units compare to the BW units you mentioned? Dark Templar - Dark Templar. Not really much different. Mobile detection is a little more of a pain in SC2, so I guess they're better for map control, but otherwise about the same. High Templar - Taking advantage of Smart Casting means having them all on one hotkey. Having them all on one hotkey means they clump. Having them clumped means they get EMPed (as happened to MC a few times). So using HTs in the blander way is actually objectively worse than microing them all individually. (I do like the idea of having a fairly good easy way for the casuals, and a significantly better hard way for pros). I will admit that Storm is less powerful and game-changing than the BW variant, but it can still flip battles. HTs also have feedback, which you're going to want to cast on ghosts and maybe medivacs. HTs certainly ARE being used with much less skill, but I don't think they will be forever because making them act like BW HTs makes them better. You just have to manually spread them in SC2 when you didn't in BW. I also keep seeing pros walk the HTs in front of their army so they get sniped, which I assume isn't on purpose. Observers - Observers. Nothing's really different. They observe. It's what they do. Shuttles - White-Ra has some nice Warp Prism micro in PvP, but they probably need more health to get enough use. Archons - Archons. Once they become massive in the next patch (FINALLY), they'll be exactly the same. Reavers I'll give you. I've seen Phoenixes gigglestomp entire mineral lines, but you need four or five of them to do that. Maybe the expansion will fill the niche. Reavers are popular, after all, so maybe they were saved for the expansion. You didn't mention Corsairs, but I'll give you those as well. Phoenixes are apparently the fast anti-air of the Corsair with the worker-killin' of the Reaver, and they're one of the better units in SC2 for that reason, but they're honestly not as good right now. Talkin' bout tier one, Zealots need a little babysitting but a lot less than BW (but it's amazing how many top Protosses fail to even put them in the front. MC is sadly not unique in that regard, [b]San[/b[). Blink micro for stalkers is pretty cool. We see players blink individual injured stalkers to the back to keep them alive and shooting, and as the skill level increases we'll see them doing it in large battles as well, which will certainly help unblob them a little, hopefully in conjunction with other micro improvements (medivac micro vs Force Fields, Ghosts vs Templar, storm-dodging, etc). | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:59 Snaphoo wrote: [...] if that was true then someone who plays BW at a high level could become Masters in SC2 in less than a week, yes? Same game? [...] Hmm, as far as i have heard, this is definitely true.. Have you heard the saying "Getting Diamond in SC2 is the equivalent of logging on to Iccup"?.. Whats Masters compared to high level Brood War then? I think that this post put it very well. On April 29 2011 14:56 jellyfish wrote: [...] First of all, I think using "trust the game will get good" is a lazy proxy for actually articulating what aspects of sc2 inspire such faith. Those on the other side have said, for example, that an abundance of one-dimensional units don't bode well for sc2. What, then, is your reason for believing otherwise? If it's just blind faith based on the "starcraft" and "blizzard" brand names, then, well, I think I'll just stop here. But the more cogent counter-argument has already been written in this thread. It deserves reiteration: sc2 had 11 years of an rts e-sport to learn from. The notions of micro, macro, the concepts of economy and base management, multitasking, flanking, harassing, unit compositions, scouting, and so on...in other words, all the fundamentals of an rts have been fleshed out to a science by brood war. Moreover, the pro-scene sprung up globally even before retail, and has only intensified in number and quality of play. You're telling me that NONE of that carries over, that NONE of that accelerates the development of sc2 as an e-sport? I find that laughably naive, or willfully ignorant. To illustrate: I watched a bit of the NASL today, and its amazing that Julyzerg is performing at such a high level in sc2. He'd been an over-the-hill legend for a while now; isn't it curious, if sc2 "is its own game," that a washed-up player like July was doing so well in sc2? Even more strangely, why are all the top pros ex-bw or ex-wc3 pros, if sc2 "is its own game"? It's because the rts genre is only so wide, and even within that narrow definition, sc2 sits pretty close to bw, and maybe even wc3, for the same concepts to apply. Given all this, don't you think that we, as longtime bw fans, followers, students, have legitimate voices when it comes to thinking about sc2's future? | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
"OMG HES ATKING WITH UNITS!! THINGS ARE DIEING, THERES A COLLOSUS DOING SOO MUCH DAMAGE, ITS DOING SOOO MUCH DAMAGE, OMG HES TARGETING THE COLLOSUS, BUT THE PROTOSS PLAYER IS MOVING HIM BACK, HEEEESA MOVING THE COLLOSUS BACK!!!! HESSSA MOVING IT BACK,,, HES MOVING IT FORWARD! WHAT TERRIFIC MICRO!!!" and then of course everyone loves this commentator because he can yell loud enough to force the viewer to pay attention to the battle. And the game is soooo easy. I played the game for like a week when it came out, put it down until a month ago, and played for a few days as zerg. Having no understanding of the game other than bits I had picked up from tsl3 and a couple other vods I hit diamond. And this is when I was D+ on iccup. There.. about three days of sc2 as a D+ player=diamond z.z I wish blizzard would stop treating me like i'm + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2523/3763562167_ce15580502.jpg) | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
@puppykiller I don't think that the commentators fake any emotion to the game. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
i dont know what you mean by manually spreading HTs, are you talking about the unit or the storms? | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
| ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 29 2011 17:29 Legatus Lanius wrote: i rewatched that video that was posted a few days ago. as an honest question, are games usually that devoid of harassment in tsl3? it seemed to me the whole game was either two big armies clashing or two big armies walking around the map its not just TSL3,most games are usually devoid of harassment.Harassment is something that people feel impossible to do although as TvP/PvT. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 29 2011 17:34 BLinD-RawR wrote: its not just TSL3,most games are usually devoid of harassment.Harassment is something that people feel impossible to do although as TvP/PvT. I thought the entire San vs sCfOu series from GSL Code S Season 2 had a TON of harassment from both players. Heck, that series is the rare antithesis to the much derided "200/200 ball vs ball 1-engagement" gameplay, especially considering that both players hovered far below max for the majority of the game. Even Artosis commented that the game looked an awful lot like Brood War, and I feel that the series does show potential for the kinds of games that SC2 can possibly provide. Also, I think harassment is entirely possible in TvP/PvT. MMM allows for splitting off small forces into Medivacs for drops, which I see Terrans do A LOT in TvP to snipe tech buildings, probes, and expansions. In addition, I feel that Warp Prisms are criminally underused in every matchup, especially considering that their 100/40 health/shields is equivalent to the 80/60 health/shields of the Shuttle. San used extensively to great effect against sC by warping in Zealots and DTs for harassment, and Storm Drops are as powerful in SC2 as they were in BW despite almost never showing up in pro games. Also, I think Ribbon has some good points. Pros just aren't playing optimally despite all the easier mechanics and AI helping them out. Some units, such as Warp Prisms, theoretically hold huge potential in gameplay and spectator appeal yet are still extremely underused. It is possible for players to play more entertaining, BW-esque games and styles instead of maxing out a ball and going for one big engagement, and I think this possibility is why people have hope in SC2 despite all its flaws. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
^Blindrawr: there is little to no incentive to do cute tricks as they usually are a huge investment, for example a speed warp prism with hts in it has good potential right?But the investment is huge and the gain from it will be little while the risk is even larger. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
Now when i think about it sc2 is a serious disappointment to us who have experience bw first hand not only dustin bowder took out the fun out of the game he made it so accessible and blizzard feeding the whole mindless community with the esport propaganda I am just seriously lucky that bw doesn't have lots of mindless drones to contend with and if you guys actually remembered the lead designer was the one who said the sc2 ENGINE CAN DO ANYTHING but i doubt it can seriously all the lies and hopes they stir us up for this successor of the known bw it really kills me how they handle the franchise . | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 29 2011 19:33 Sawamura wrote: My beef with sc2 is the storyline and all the dumb excuses they make to shove out all the good units with the obsolete and useless kind of statement that our vultures in bw are leaking radioactive stuff ... LOL That SC2:BW dude who made vulture AI and their mines dumb. They could have kept the vulture, less imba (since it's a double edge sword) and more fun to watch. But that's just me. And regarding your quote, IMO, yeah, that statement about radioactive leaking from the bikes is pretty dumb. You can actually see units or buildings survive a Nuclear Strike from a ghost. Surely there will be radioactive stuff lying around that blasted area but no, you can actually remake your stuff back and move stuff in and from the blasted area. Take a look at the recent triple nuke by ruby against zero, that 12 oclock base was nuked 3x! If what that blasted dwarf said on the hyperion was true then zero couldn't have rebuilt his base there! LOLOLOL. Poor story IMO .. and .. + Show Spoiler + Tassadar was alive! | ||
|
By.Fantasy
Thailand123 Posts
On April 29 2011 19:33 Sawamura wrote: Take a look at the recent triple nuke by ruby against zero, that 12 oclock base was nuked 3x! If what that blasted dwarf said on the hyperion was true then zero couldn't have rebuilt his base there! LOLOLOL. Poor story IMO .. and .. + Show Spoiler + Tassadar was alive! Well Korhal IV was nuked like 263817638721 nuke coming down from the sky and Its still the capital of the the Terran dominion today.... | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
On April 29 2011 18:05 eviltomahawk wrote: I thought the entire San vs sCfOu series from GSL Code S Season 2 had a TON of harassment from both players. Heck, that series is the rare antithesis to the much derided "200/200 ball vs ball 1-engagement" gameplay, especially considering that both players hovered far below max for the majority of the game. Even Artosis commented that the game looked an awful lot like Brood War, and I feel that the series does show potential for the kinds of games that SC2 can possibly provide. Also, I think harassment is entirely possible in TvP/PvT. MMM allows for splitting off small forces into Medivacs for drops, which I see Terrans do A LOT in TvP to snipe tech buildings, probes, and expansions. In addition, I feel that Warp Prisms are criminally underused in every matchup, especially considering that their 100/40 health/shields is equivalent to the 80/60 health/shields of the Shuttle. San used extensively to great effect against sC by warping in Zealots and DTs for harassment, and Storm Drops are as powerful in SC2 as they were in BW despite almost never showing up in pro games. Also, I think Ribbon has some good points. Pros just aren't playing optimally despite all the easier mechanics and AI helping them out. Some units, such as Warp Prisms, theoretically hold huge potential in gameplay and spectator appeal yet are still extremely underused. It is possible for players to play more entertaining, BW-esque games and styles instead of maxing out a ball and going for one big engagement, and I think this possibility is why people have hope in SC2 despite all its flaws. Despite all the good things they can do with a game engine in 2010, it most likely promotes laziness in the players even though they could potentially do far more in the game yet still can't do as well as the players of the older game. Dropships flew faster than the unnerfed medivacs, so tanks/vultures could be dropped on the toss with multipronged attacks. Did they stop using warp prisms to shield HTs from emps? On April 29 2011 16:59 Ribbon wrote: ...Corsairs, but I'll give you those as well. Phoenixes are apparently the fast anti-air of the Corsair with the worker-killing of the Reaver, and they're one of the better units in SC2 for that reason, but they're honestly not as good right now. They seem more of a harass unit than a unit useful for a big battle with good synergy to mix. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On April 29 2011 21:53 nalgene wrote: Despite all the good things they can do with a game engine in 2010, it most likely promotes laziness in the players even though they could potentially do far more in the game yet still can't do as well as the players of the older game. Dropships flew faster than the unnerfed medivacs, so tanks/vultures could be dropped on the toss with multipronged attacks. Did they stop using warp prisms to shield HTs from emps? They seem more of a harass unit than a unit useful for a big battle with good synergy to mix. One thing you have to realize that almost all, if not all, of the units in BW can used in the battlefront. SC2 units like Reapers, Pheonix, Queen, have a defined purpose for the game, which IMO, is a waste of unit slot in the game. But that's just me .. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On April 29 2011 23:42 aimaimaim wrote: One thing you have to realize that almost all, if not all, of the units in BW can used in the battlefront. SC2 units like Reapers, Pheonix, Queen, have a defined purpose for the game, which IMO, is a waste of unit slot in the game. But that's just me .. Phoenix are increasingly playing an integral role in SC2 Protoss army compositions (unlike Corsairs really did in Broodwar, unless the meta has radically changed since I watched). Unless they are EMP'd, their ability to segment reinforcements into even smaller chunks does wonders for winning battles. They also are critical to deal with air units that are attacking Collossi. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 30 2011 00:23 Legatus Lanius wrote: oh corsairs play a huge role in pvz Yes they do. unless they are Doh-sairs :p. | ||
|
J1.au
Australia3596 Posts
| ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
its interesting to read too, of course And from the few games that i watch Phoenix's uses arent as complex as TheTenthDoc mentioned.. Sure they COULD be used that way, just that nobody bothered to before (as far as i can see), just like they couldnt be bothered to micro/spread their army/etc =x | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On April 30 2011 00:52 J1.au wrote: Too much SC2 talk in a Brood War forum thread... Really? I love when the masses of SC2 fanboys come here trying to spout off like they have some deep understanding of BW and use it as a base for all these preposterous statements on SC2's future while completely ignoring glaring facts and refusing to so much as address them. Its truly entertaining. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 29 2011 17:29 Legatus Lanius wrote: i rewatched that video that was posted a few days ago. as an honest question, are games usually that devoid of harassment in tsl3? it seemed to me the whole game was either two big armies clashing or two big armies walking around the map I've been watching TSL 3 in bits and pieces. I'm more of a GSL man. GSL started with a lot of one-base all-ins (during GSL 3, pulling all your SCVs to attack with your first handful of marines was actually standard in TvZ! BitByBit did it literally every game!) Then around GSL 4, that stopped working as well, and we saw people doing a lot of two-base all-ins. Occasionally a maverick like MVP would do something insane like react to an FE on Metalopolis by double-expanding (and the LR thread went wild), but the standard was a two base timing attack. Then we entered a period of macro games. Taking a third was common, and games that went to 4 bases, while not the majority, were common enough to be unremarkable. Protoss players found themselves going pretty unharassed late-game, because back then you could literally summon a Templar with enough energy to storm wherever you wanted right away, and deal with the harassment with ease, even if you didn't prepare. Then the Amulet upgrade that let that happen got taken out, and we're starting to see Macro games with harassment (MMA dropped in three places at once with marauders while poking with his main army in the first game of Code A this season). So harassment in TvP is only now starting to be viable, so a lot of Terrans aren't doing it well yet, but the ones who are win their games. SC2 didn't start from point X in BW's history and evolve at the same speed BW did. It started at point zero, and has been evolving much faster, with all the messiness that implies. In terms of the matchups TvT is considered the best SC2 matchup right now, and I've heard people say it was better than the BW version. We had periods of people trying bio, and the super-fast harassment ninja bio army vs. slow but unstoppable mech army games (Marine King vs Nada) were always really fun to watch, but the mech player tended to win, so that stopped happening. Right now, TvT works like this 1. Harassment! Players harass each others mineral lines with blue flame hellion drops, banshees, floating a factory to the back of the opponent's base and making a hellion and then running up the front with marines (that was awesome), or nuking the ramp and running up with flamethrower-armed ATVs (tactically unsound, but manly as all hell). 2. Tanks! Players set up the World War 1 positional lines with tanks, and use small groups of infantry to drop the map. Banshees and hellions don't stop being good, but players stop using them for some reason ;_;. A lot of Vikings are made for vision, but if one player gets a big lead, the other will just cede the point. 3. Cattlebruisers! With Patch 1.3, if the tanks phase led to a stalemate situation, it can be broken by teching to air. If one player has Viking Superiority, teching to Battlecruisers is considered the correct move, but mass banshee has worked as well. This only recently became viable, so it's in the air how you react, besides a timing attack during the transition. TvZ sees a lot of early-game bunker rush pressure from the Terran, which doesn't do all that much. Zerg used to turtle up to 200/200 and push out, but that hasn't worked out well for them in ZvT (and has worked out horrifically in ZvP), so Zerg will put a lot of pressure on the Terran now. "A lot of pressure" depend on who's playing, as it hasn't been standardized. Muta tends to be popular, but infestors are REALLY good against bio. I've even seen someone make 140 banelings and just Tsunami down half the map TvP used to have little to no harassment. Protoss is having issues right now. Their 200/200 ball is actually very hard to stop, so they have an incentive to turtle. Recently, a patch made it less comically easy for Protoss to defend, and we're seeing Terrans realize that multipronged Marauder drops are, like, really good. ZvZ is pretty much constant aggression, though not quite to the extent of BW ZvZ. ZvP is imbalanced pretty hard in favor of Protoss right now, unless the Zerg in question is Losira (SO GOOD). If Protoss gets a 200/200 ball of Colossus and Void Rays, Zerg can't even slow it down enough to remax, so ZvP is "For god's sake, don't let him get to 200/200!". Here's a TSL game This game made Incontrol admit that Protoss was OP. So ZvP has issues. Zerg are right now doing everything they can think off to harass the Protoss so this can't happen, but only Losira is having a lot of success with that. There are rumblings of a Colossus nerf, which might alleviate this quite a bit, but we'll see. PvP is just weird, and is going to be fundamentally altered (for the better, is the consensus) with the patch that's in PTR right now. | ||
|
ohlala
Germany232 Posts
| ||
|
qdenser
Canada133 Posts
On April 30 2011 03:09 Ribbon wrote:TvT is considered the best SC2 matchup right now, and I've heard people say it was better than the BW version. actually, no one is saying that | ||
|
pig-dude
United States170 Posts
Also known as Weasel Words. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
Alot of games are still basically one big battle with big ball, Sc2 is strangely more unforgivable, you can not claw your way back into games with use of micro or certain units. The first major battle decides the entire game basically. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On April 30 2011 05:31 Kipsate wrote: The problem is still that I haven't seen any new micro in SC2 since Marine baneling was discovered and (No banshee does not count, that was already there and used). Ow yeah, I do find TvT sc2 more enjoyable then Bw TvT SOMETIMES, as TvT sc2 is more fastpaced and each game doesn't last in 40min, however the topnotch BW TvT's beat SC2 TvT hands down(likes of Fantasy and Baby). Alot of games are still basically one big battle with big ball, Sc2 is strangely more unforgivable, you can not claw your way back into games with use of micro or certain units. The first major battle decides the entire game basically. Bomber vs. IMMVP, GSTL February, MVP comes back from 50 food down to win the game. | ||
|
eeniebear
United States197 Posts
On April 30 2011 01:10 sCCrooked wrote: Really? I love when the masses of SC2 fanboys come here trying to spout off like they have some deep understanding of BW and use it as a base for all these preposterous statements on SC2's future while completely ignoring glaring facts and refusing to so much as address them. Its truly entertaining. Anything the SC2 fanboys have to say can be countered by this: MBS + infinite control groups. Followed by massive LOLs. SCBW is a game. SC2 is a toy. | ||
|
Slago
Canada726 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:48 orgolove wrote: SC2 was doomed from the start when they hired the guy responsible for the farce that is the current Command and Conquer to be their designer. i love how if i low post count user does this an insta warning or temp ban, if its a high post count its fine........ doesn't seem fair, Browder isn't exactly the best in my opinion but he's not that bad | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On April 30 2011 14:11 eeniebear wrote: Anything the SC2 fanboys have to say can be countered by this: MBS + infinite control groups. Followed by massive LOLs. SCBW is a sport. SC2 is a game. Fixed it. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217826 This is the live report thread for the GSL ro16 that's going on right now. As I'm watching, the first series is AWFUL, which atrocious play from both sides. How do the SC2 fans react? How do the SC2 fans react? (GSL Ro16 spoilers, beware!) + Show Spoiler + On April 30 2011 14:33 tree.hugger wrote: Why is stupid passivity worthy of nerd chills? Why is Killer called "Killer" if he doesn't want to kill his opponent when he has the advantage? On April 30 2011 14:33 Ribbon wrote: Nice EMP, and Clide takes out the base base with 40 minerals left in it. Way to go, Clide. You're a hero. DTs! On April 30 2011 14:34 kyophan wrote: One of the collosus was hitting a building in the main the whole battle. On April 30 2011 14:35 Ribbon wrote: DTs in by army. Better scan Killer's third. Clide is making up for impressing me earlier. On April 30 2011 14:35 aebriol wrote: Clide falling apart, he landed his vikings and suicided them before the last colossus died ... On April 30 2011 14:36 Kettchup wrote: SangHo with some terrible battle control, but Clide is handing it to him anyway. On April 30 2011 14:37 GDbushido wrote: still no raven for clide. this really is one of the sloppiest code s games ive ever seen, im not trolling just kind of amazed. On April 30 2011 14:38 ffadicted wrote: omg killed is the most passive protoss I have ever seen.... this isn't the way to play toss braaaah On April 30 2011 14:41 tree.hugger wrote: GO KILL HIM. MY GOD JUST KILL HIM. On April 30 2011 14:42 ffadicted wrote: Am I watching Code C? <_< On April 30 2011 14:42 Goibon wrote: He can't win this... can he? although it's been a very close crap game not like anyone has actually played good in this On April 30 2011 14:42 uSnAmplified wrote: Are you serious if sangho loses im going to die laughing at this point this game has been so bad On April 30 2011 14:43 Ribbon wrote: Vikings attack Killer's Colossus, and Killer has no stalkers. So killer runs the Colossus to the LEFT while warping in stalkers to the RIGHT. On April 30 2011 14:44 Goibon wrote: WOW Killer GGs the worst epic TvP i've ever seen up there with the Inca Rain game for all the wrong reasons On April 30 2011 14:44 babylon wrote: Glad Clide won this one, but that was a shitty, sloppy game. On April 30 2011 14:46 tree.hugger wrote: Some days, I watch Sc2, and I really can see it becoming exciting, becoming a fun game to watch and support. After MC vs ThorZaIN, for example, I was really excited, because here, at last was a series of games that really had depth to them. And then I watch games like that one, and it just completely collapses any faith I had in Sc2 ever becoming worthy of sustained attention. Anyone else feel this way? On April 30 2011 14:47 Goibon wrote: Inca Rain felt like it was one long fuckup. This game felt like it was fuckup after fuckup. Trainwreck entertaining for the whole back half. I have them both neck in neck honestly, different games but similarly amazing for the wrong reasons. On April 30 2011 14:48 NoobSh1t wrote: That game was soooooooo sloppy >.> Clide plays well, than he makes mistake and killer gets advantage, then killer messes up and clide wins? wtf? Thorzain vs MC g4 still greatest TvP of all time. On April 30 2011 14:49 Dfgj wrote: ughhhh Killer why :< He was even chronoboosting the forges. Maybe he missed the integral step of actually starting an upgrade in them. And that's only set 1! And these are former BW pros! So the idea that SC2 players are playing at a high level because of BW experience doesn't hold a lot of water for me. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
On April 30 2011 15:25 Ribbon wrote: I think the best argument in favor of SC2's potential is, ironically, a really awful series. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217826 This is the live report thread for the GSL ro16 that's going on right now. As I'm watching, the first series is AWFUL, which atrocious play from both sides. How do the SC2 fans react? How do the SC2 fans react? (GSL Ro16 spoilers, beware!) + Show Spoiler + On April 30 2011 14:33 tree.hugger wrote: Why is stupid passivity worthy of nerd chills? Why is Killer called "Killer" if he doesn't want to kill his opponent when he has the advantage? On April 30 2011 14:33 Ribbon wrote: Nice EMP, and Clide takes out the base base with 40 minerals left in it. Way to go, Clide. You're a hero. DTs! On April 30 2011 14:34 kyophan wrote: One of the collosus was hitting a building in the main the whole battle. On April 30 2011 14:35 Ribbon wrote: DTs in by army. Better scan Killer's third. Clide is making up for impressing me earlier. On April 30 2011 14:35 aebriol wrote: Clide falling apart, he landed his vikings and suicided them before the last colossus died ... On April 30 2011 14:36 Kettchup wrote: SangHo with some terrible battle control, but Clide is handing it to him anyway. On April 30 2011 14:37 GDbushido wrote: still no raven for clide. this really is one of the sloppiest code s games ive ever seen, im not trolling just kind of amazed. On April 30 2011 14:38 ffadicted wrote: omg killed is the most passive protoss I have ever seen.... this isn't the way to play toss braaaah On April 30 2011 14:41 tree.hugger wrote: GO KILL HIM. MY GOD JUST KILL HIM. On April 30 2011 14:42 ffadicted wrote: Am I watching Code C? <_< On April 30 2011 14:42 Goibon wrote: He can't win this... can he? although it's been a very close crap game not like anyone has actually played good in this On April 30 2011 14:42 uSnAmplified wrote: Are you serious if sangho loses im going to die laughing at this point this game has been so bad On April 30 2011 14:43 Ribbon wrote: Vikings attack Killer's Colossus, and Killer has no stalkers. So killer runs the Colossus to the LEFT while warping in stalkers to the RIGHT. On April 30 2011 14:44 Goibon wrote: WOW Killer GGs the worst epic TvP i've ever seen up there with the Inca Rain game for all the wrong reasons On April 30 2011 14:44 babylon wrote: Glad Clide won this one, but that was a shitty, sloppy game. On April 30 2011 14:46 tree.hugger wrote: Some days, I watch Sc2, and I really can see it becoming exciting, becoming a fun game to watch and support. After MC vs ThorZaIN, for example, I was really excited, because here, at last was a series of games that really had depth to them. And then I watch games like that one, and it just completely collapses any faith I had in Sc2 ever becoming worthy of sustained attention. Anyone else feel this way? On April 30 2011 14:47 Goibon wrote: Inca Rain felt like it was one long fuckup. This game felt like it was fuckup after fuckup. Trainwreck entertaining for the whole back half. I have them both neck in neck honestly, different games but similarly amazing for the wrong reasons. On April 30 2011 14:48 NoobSh1t wrote: That game was soooooooo sloppy >.> Clide plays well, than he makes mistake and killer gets advantage, then killer messes up and clide wins? wtf? Thorzain vs MC g4 still greatest TvP of all time. On April 30 2011 14:49 Dfgj wrote: ughhhh Killer why :< He was even chronoboosting the forges. Maybe he missed the integral step of actually starting an upgrade in them. And that's only set 1! And these are former BW pros! So the idea that SC2 players are playing at a high level because of BW experience doesn't hold a lot of water for me. Lol so many sc2 arguments are made supported by only one or two games. Specially the ones claiming one game is exciting to watch... those are the most hilarious. "omg there is a mild amount of action in the game and a mild amount of micro... its not obvious who will win and it for once in this one battle is sort of coming down to simple execution rather than primarily rock paper scissors... sc2 must be good!! now I have proof!... now i gotta rush online and post about this to try to make those BW elitists hate me less!!" Viewers can be so dumb.. they often get confused and think they are enjoying a game when really they are just enjoying the hype. Gorgeous micro.. mechanics and strategy are lost to them. ya and as for the game u mentioned.. im sorry u were able to dig deep enough to find 2 ppl playing like shit. Doesnt mean the skill ceiling is high.. all it means is that sangho had to pee the whole match | ||
|
HighTemper
Canada3867 Posts
On April 30 2011 01:10 sCCrooked wrote: Really? I love when the masses of SC2 fanboys come here trying to spout off like they have some deep understanding of BW and use it as a base for all these preposterous statements on SC2's future while completely ignoring glaring facts and refusing to so much as address them. Its truly entertaining. While I am fairly entertained by the persistence of SC2 fans, their preposterous arguments and their efforts to promote SC2 on the BW forum. Repeating the same weak arguments, that I have read in other thread, a hundred times will never convince us BW fans. I had high hope on SC2. I followed news, announcements, and forums since beta. However, I didn't even buy the game after watching my friends play at their house. It is a huge let down. And I give up my last hope for SC's future ever since they make changes that actually limit strategic options (Completely Remove BBS; Remove Void Rays speed that make them obsolete, etc). WC3 was suffered by this and I can see the same fate to SC2 if that's the direction they are heading. Products cater to the market. Given the trend of today's gaming development, it is not hard to envision the games and players are basically getting more one dimensional and casual. The "Nahtzee" video on page 13 summarize this pretty well. On April 30 2011 15:25 Ribbon wrote: I think the best argument in favor of SC2's potential is, ironically, a really awful series. [...] And that's only set 1! And these are former BW pros! So the idea that SC2 players are playing at a high level because of BW experience doesn't hold a lot of water for me. Down-playing BW pros as an arguments for SC2's potential is actually much worse than the arguments of sub-optimal play and the 2 expansion packs. No, I do not see the connection between SC2's potential and "how badly the wash-up BW legends and unsuccessful BW pros do in SC2". As for sub-optimal play and 2 expansion packs, there will be refinements and there is hope. I do not foresee how perfecting the executions with the current game and adding new units can solve the fundamental design and gameplay problems without changing the philosophy of pleasing the mass. Some of the more critical problems are: similar mechanics for most units (Stop-and-shoot, acceleration/deceleration), similar general purpose units (Roach/Marauder/Immortal/Thor/Corruptor), Terrible-terrible-damage (short battles), limited strategic options (rock-paper-scissors type), and micro-hindering skills. SC2 fans. Please stop posting without any new insights. On April 29 2011 11:18 ShadeR wrote: + Show Spoiler + iloveoov is credited with the macro era of BW. He is 2 years post 2001. I do NOT want a generic RTS. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
| ||
|
HighTemper
Canada3867 Posts
On April 30 2011 23:55 aimaimaim wrote: The micro and macro became easy from BW to SC2 .. wtf are you talking about??? If you mean game control features such as MBS, infinite-unit control group, automine, UI, etc, these are already discussed to death and I left those out of my post because they are no way changeable. Do you think Blizzard will remove MBS? I am taking one level down and listing what Blizzard can do with the changeable game features.Don't you think by changing unit mechanics, more unit varieties (non-general purpose), and having skills more micro-able by opponents would promote more unit interactions and make micro and macro "harder"? | ||
|
StimedPylon
United Kingdom29 Posts
| ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
On May 01 2011 02:01 StimedPylon wrote: This thread in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mxypu9WC8c actually u can have control groups in war2. Also the micro in war2 is basicly nonexistent aside from spell casters. BW harder then War2 | ||
|
qdenser
Canada133 Posts
On May 01 2011 02:01 StimedPylon wrote: This thread in a nutshell: no, no, this thread in a nutshell is that some people play games because of the challenge of linking fast thinking in their brain to fast physical actions of their hands on the keyboard and mouse. but, some other people like shiny graphics User was warned for this post | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On May 01 2011 00:22 HighTemper wrote: If you mean game control features such as MBS, infinite-unit control group, automine, UI, etc, these are already discussed to death and I left those out of my post because they are no way changeable. Do you think Blizzard will remove MBS? I am taking one level down and listing what Blizzard can do with the changeable game features.Don't you think by changing unit mechanics, more unit varieties (non-general purpose), and having skills more micro-able by opponents would promote more unit interactions and make micro and macro "harder"? They wont change it. Because they want a noob friendly game. They encourage ball vs ball play. If you want to make it harder, change it to be like BW UI. Hard, Unforgiving, Dumb. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On April 29 2011 14:29 Snaphoo wrote:That's just one example... SC2 is extremely entertaining [citation needed] Really there's no point in discussion when there's people like you and Ribbon just repeating the same shit after it's been refuted. Everything meaningful has already been said anyway. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 09:25 infinity2k9 wrote: [citation needed] Really there's no point in discussion when there's people like you and Ribbon just repeating the same shit after it's been refuted. Everything meaningful has already been said anyway. What that I have said has been refuted? I realize this is in a BW thread, but this interview with Dustin Browder talks about SC2 without a hint of Brood War; it's not that SC2 fans are trolling BW forums. I think there is one argument that I think above all underscores why SC2 is important: Brood War is stale. It is 13 years old, and virtually every match-up has been played to death. There are no dramatic new playstyles, no month-by-month shifts in the metagame, and very little opportunity for players with creative play to make a name for themselves. Maps are changing all the time which is cool, and the gosus at the top are undeniably amazing to watch. But it's an old game. It's no longer featured at WCG, outside of Korea it's pretty much been replaced by SC2, and hearing BW fans sneer at SC2 is annoying because they're more interested in proving BW is a "better" game than SC2. I don't know if you're right, but I do know that outside of Korea, Brood War is a relic with no major tournaments, no growth base, and no real mechanism for newbies to get involved. In part because of elitist old-guard fans like yourself, but also because it's just not as dynamic a game anymore. It's been figured out, at least to a much greater degree than SC2. The hostility you show towards SC2 fans underscores why the Brood War fanbase has shrunk significantly, among other reasons. There's enormous potential for SC2, and it's less than a year old and already produced many epic series and games. Match-ups are changing, new pros are emerging all the time, and many, many new playstyles are emerging all the time. You sneer at people giving individual examples of how awesome SC2 is, but let me ask-- what is the threshhold for proving it's an awesome game? Five televised games? Twenty? Seven hundred? I'm not trying to "convince" BW fans of anything; who cares if you think your game is better than SC2-- SC2 is here to stay, and it doesn't need Brood War fans to continue to grow in popularity. Perhaps that is what earns so much of your ire. All I'm saying is to give SC2 a chance and perhaps consider enjoying it, because it is the pinnacle and future of eSports right now, and Brood War (while honorable and impressive) is the past. Touting the macro of a Flash/Jaedong or talking about Proleague matches from 2005 isn't going to change that. NASL, MLG, IGN Proleague, Dreamhack... these are all amazing Western tournaments with unprecedented prize purses which are driving the growth of eSports, in large part around SC2. Instead of hating on the sequel to your beloved BW, why not embrace the good it has done for eSports and enjoy as it continues to mature and develop? I promise you'll be much happier, and find that us SC2 fans aren't so bad after all. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
Brood War is stale. It is 13 years old, and virtually every match-up has been played to death. There are no dramatic new playstyles, no month-by-month shifts in the metagame, and very little opportunity for players with creative play to make a name for themselves. Maps are changing all the time which is cool, and the gosus at the top are undeniably amazing to watch. But it's an old game shows how little you know,please stop posting here you are hurting your credibility. I would defend SC2 myself but there has to be new evidence before saying spouting same old shit and hoping to get to people who don't like it is absolutely pointless. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:38 BLinD-RawR wrote: shows how little you know,please stop posting here you are hurting your credibility. I would defend SC2 myself but there has to be new evidence before saying spouting same old shit and hoping to get to people who don't like it is absolutely pointless. Do tell, what dramatic playstyle shifts in the Brood War metagame have occurred between February 2011 and April 2011? | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:40 Snaphoo wrote: Do tell, what dramatic playstyle shifts in the Brood War metagame have occurred between February 2011 and April 2011? queens being the answer to Terran mech being the biggest. breaking of ZvZ past lair tech by great who is the master of Hive tech ZvZ.there are others but I'll leave that to someone who watched every game for the last couple of months. oh and I forgot to mention Neo +1 speedlot timing in PvZ by Bisu. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
Since February in SC2: Siege tank expands in TvP Roach-ling early pressure timing to destroy 3 gate expand while taking 3rd ZvP Roach burrow timing to negate sentries in ZvP Thor/Banshee transitions in lategame in TvP Viable Battlecruiser lategame in TvT 6 rax all-ins supportable on 1 base TvX Colossus + Phoenix midgame TvP destroying MMM with Vikings Double Forge timings PvT Infestor/Ling/Ultralisk Zerg composition (total revolution from ling/bling/muta of past 6 months) 3 gate expands becoming mainstream PvT 2 Gate Stargate expand PvZ | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:30 Snaphoo wrote: What that I have said has been refuted? I realize this is in a BW thread, but this interview with Dustin Browder talks about SC2 without a hint of Brood War; it's not that SC2 fans are trolling BW forums. I think there is one argument that I think above all underscores why SC2 is important: Brood War is stale. It is 13 years old, and virtually every match-up has been played to death. There are no dramatic new playstyles, no month-by-month shifts in the metagame, and very little opportunity for players with creative play to make a name for themselves. Maps are changing all the time which is cool, and the gosus at the top are undeniably amazing to watch. . This you clearly did not play bw or even follow the current scene for you to make that kind of statement as bw did not stop growing in terms of new play from the game changing use of queens in tvz to destroy mech and from bio to mech tech switch during tvz it revolutionize tvz like never before and yet you say there is no change . Well unlike sc2 everytime some one find challenges in the game they cant handle they call blizzard and whine like a kid who drop his milk on the floor and cries so blizzard can patch the game and make it more less IMBA too bad bw is not catered for the masses like you have stated and sc2 is so boring let me tell you the graphics are so ugly for spectators to watch that sc2 only is just suger coated with colourful graphics for attraction but the game has no substance . Seriously if i wanted to play something colourful and not having to micro and macro i could have just go play warcraft 3 and they dare label starcraft 2 when the game lacks of units that are microable or even has harassment functions that are actually devastating .They might as well call it warcraft 2 in space .No barracks before supply depot ? How freaking boring terran has become in sc2 unlike in bw we can build a proxy racks and even do some thing cheesy in game . You call them gosus and i call them noob what they can do anyone with a god damn 100 apm also can do the same micro and unlike bw for you to pull of something like the pro's requires seriously hand speed and good cordination plus apm to keep it up and that's what distinguish a normal person between a pro . Every single game i see in sc2 leads to blob vs blob battles are these interesting to the viewers ? probably you sc2 fanatics but not me at first these game when they had reapers who were quite the harassment unit they made it interesting but no the cry of imba made blizzard push the red button and nerf the damn unit so what kind of interesting games are left for sc2 ? 1 base macro and than blob vs blob battle ? You call that interesting lol any given day a bw game is obviously better than sc2 . | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:44 BLinD-RawR wrote: queens being the answer to Terran mech being the biggest. breaking of ZvZ past lair tech by great who is the master of Hive tech ZvZ.there are others but I'll leave that to someone who watched every game for the last couple of months. oh and I forgot to mention Neo +1 speedlot timing in PvZ by Bisu. +1 Speedlot by Bisu was definitely the only one I had in mind, although I thought he was doing that since December? In either case, definitely a good example. Queens v. Terran Mech I have no idea, but I'll take your word for it; I watch very little BW unless it's something momentous like a group with Jaedong/Flash/Sea/Bisu. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:50 Snaphoo wrote: Cool. Since February in SC2: Siege tank expands in TvP Roach-ling early pressure timing to destroy 3 gate expand while taking 3rd ZvP Roach burrow timing to negate sentries in ZvP Thor/Banshee transitions in lategame in TvP Viable Battlecruiser lategame in TvT 6 rax all-ins supportable on 1 base TvX Colossus + Phoenix midgame TvP destroying MMM with Vikings Double Forge timings PvT Infestor/Ling/Ultralisk Zerg composition (total revolution from ling/bling/muta of past 6 months) 3 gate expands becoming mainstream PvT 2 Gate Stargate expand PvZ uhhh you do realize that SC2 is a new game that has constant metagame shifts because its being discovered. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:50 Sawamura wrote: This you clearly did not play bw or even follow the current scene for you to make that kind of statement as bw did not stop growing in terms of new play from the game changing use of queens in tvz to destroy mech and from bio to mech tech switch during tvz it revolutionize tvz like never before and yet you say there is no change . Well unlike sc2 everytime some one find challenges in the game they cant handle they call blizzard and whine like a kid who drop his milk on the floor and cries so blizzard can patch the game and make it more less IMBA too bad bw is not catered for the masses like you have stated and sc2 is so boring let me tell you the graphics are so ugly for spectators to watch that sc2 only is just suger coated with colourful graphics for attraction but the game has no substance . Seriously if i wanted to play something colourful and not having to micro and macro i could have just go play warcraft 3 and they dare label starcraft 2 when the game lacks of units that are microable or even has harassment functions that are actually devastating .They might as well call it warcraft 2 in space .No barracks before supply depot ? How freaking boring terran has become in sc2 unlike in bw we can build a proxy racks and even do some thing cheesy in game . You call them gosus and i call them noob what they can do anyone with a god damn 100 apm also can do the same micro and unlike bw for you to pull of something like the pro's requires seriously hand speed and good cordination plus apm to keep it up and that's what distinguish a normal person between a pro . Every single game i see in sc2 leads to blob vs blob battles are these interesting to the viewers ? probably you sc2 fanatics but not me at first these game when they had reapers who were quite the harassment unit they made it interesting but no the cry of imba made blizzard push the red button and nerf the damn unit so what kind of interesting games are left for sc2 ? 1 base macro and than blob vs blob battle ? You call that interesting lol any given day a bw game is obviously better than sc2 . You're right that Brood War is a great game. SC2 does not have to be "better" than BW to enjoy. If you refuse to like SC2 and refer to its fans as kids crying over milk... the hostility level of BW fans in here really makes me happy that for all its trolls and noobs, the SC2 community is at least not as pretentious. Though I suppose when SC3 comes out the SC2 crowd will be as regressive and hostile as BW fans are right now. Ah, well, hopefully I can make a smoother transition into the future. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:52 BLinD-RawR wrote: uhhh you do realize that SC2 is a new game that has constant metagame shifts because its being discovered. Yeah. I do. So do the vast numbers of eSports fans watching GSL instead of Proleague and playing SC2 instead of iCCup. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:52 BLinD-RawR wrote: uhhh you do realize that SC2 is a new game that has constant metagame shifts because its being discovered. I believe moreso because the constant patching kills any semblance of stability the players can forge. I remember seeing the changes to zealot build times in each patch being very wishy washy. Edit: Patch 16: Zealot build time increased from 33 to 38. Patch 17: Zealot build time decreased from 38 to 33. Patch 1.1.0: Zealot build time increased from 33 to 38. Patch 1.3.3: Zealot train time decreased from 38 to 33. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:57 Snaphoo wrote: Yeah. I do. So do the vast numbers of eSports fans watching GSL instead of Proleague and playing SC2 instead of iCCup. Does not make Justin Beiber or Rebecca Black good musicians. | ||
|
erin[go]bragh
United States815 Posts
I wouldn't give a shit if it were Warcraft 6 or Command and Conquer 75, but it isn't. It's StarCraft2. And everything about Broodwar that made it great has been either watered down or removed entirely. I don't think SC2 is a bad game. In fact, I think its a great game for any RTS fan. Broodwar is simply too mechanically demanding for casual gamers, and SC2 is a good answer to that. That does not, however, mean that the game isn't boring as shit to watch. You know why Broodwar is "dead" in the west, and everyone is playing SC2? Because it's fucking easy, and tons of money has been pumped into it. It just pains me to see such a bad spectator game lead the way for esports. Had Broodwar gotten this kind of exposure, who knows what could have happened. But you know, live and let live. If someones idea of an epic game is commentators screaming "oh my god! he put his zealots in front of his stalkers! What a good player!" then thats their perogitive. I'll just continue staying up til 5am to watch the big boys clash. Edit: Sorry for the cussin'. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
| ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:59 ShadeR wrote: Does not make Justin Beiber or Rebecca Black good musicians. The fact that Ja Rule's records sales have been in steady decline since 2001 does not mean he's a good artist, or superior to Justin Bieber or Rebecca Black. And the fact that Lupe Fiasco sells like gangbusters doesn't mean he's worse than Baha Men. I see your point, though-- SC2 may not be inherently good by virtue of its popularity. (Also, Brood War is way better than the Baha Men). I'm just saying that it has a lot of potential, and is growing eSports in the West. And not just as spectators but as players, it's fun to be part of a community that's approaching something closer to mainstream status than any other RTS game in history. I'm just saying it would be fun for you BW fans to play the game a bit and give it a chance, but if it's truly unwatchable and you dislike SC2 indpeendent of your love of BW, then that's cool. I would just love if BW fans didn't feel the need to seclude themselves from SC2 to prove how much better BW is. You're not convincing anyone, you're just missing out on joining the larger SC community! | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:59 erin[go]bragh wrote: More SC2 people who don't watch BW but act like they do. I wouldn't give a shit if it were Warcraft 6 or Command and Conquer 75, but it isn't. It's StarCraft2. And everything about Broodwar that made it great has been either watered down or removed entirely. I don't think SC2 is a bad game. In fact, I think its a great game for any RTS fan. Broodwar is simply too mechanically demanding for casual gamers, and SC2 is a good answer to that. That does not, however, mean that the game isn't boring as shit to watch. You know why Broodwar is "dead" in the west, and everyone is playing SC2? Because it's fucking easy, and tons of money has been pumped into it. It just pains me to see such a bad spectator game lead the way for esports. Had Broodwar gotten this kind of exposure, who knows what could have happened. But you know, live and let live. If someones idea of an epic game is commentators screaming "oh my god! he put his zealots in front of his stalkers! What a good player!" then thats their perogitive. I'll just continue staying up til 5am to watch the big boys clash. Edit: Sorry for the cussin'. If you truly dislike SC2 outside of the context of comparing it to BW then I can respect that, and haha I would agree the tip-top players in BW have unsurpassed APM. That being said, that's one of the things I like about SC2-- players with creative play can overcome players with superior APM because the game is still so undiscovered at this point. Some call it chaos, I call it undiscovered metagame | ||
|
Harem
United States11390 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:40 Snaphoo wrote: Do tell, what dramatic playstyle shifts in the Brood War metagame have occurred between February 2011 and April 2011? Note that Ver never touched on zvz/zvp but since he made this post, there have been even more stuff ie 6hat4base zvp. On September 28 2010 05:46 Ver wrote: SC mapped out? Few innovators/innovations? Are we watching the same games here? The late 2009/2010 season has been one of the most innovative years ever! There's a large amount of exploring left in many of these systems. For Terran alone (listing general systems, not the absurd amount of variations): TvZ- Safe 14cc on 2 player maps a dozen different variations of bio -> mech and vice versa with a lot more room for further exploration (this is huge!) Flexible Valkyrie first openings that can transition into many different possibilities A totally new approach vs 2 hatch muta with aggressive marine pushes (changes a lot) 7 Rax (and overlord snipes from it) 4 rax -> triple port wraith 2 rax acad allins 3rd denial vs 3 hatch muta (very unexplored and complex) 2 base allin vs crazy zerg (3 hatch muta to ultra) Revolutionary lategame defense based off of aggressive vessel raids, covering infantry, and massed tanks (probably the biggest change in years along with bio-mech transitions) 12pool Lair with a very different and expansive early/midgame Improvements on overall mech play (several new midgame options) Heavy and consistent Vulture/Valkyrie!? (totally unexplored) TvP- Many different 3 base timings Many variations in the 2 fact after cc system both from siege expand and from FD 12 Nexus variations and emphasis 1 fact mine double expand in response to 12 Nexus New midgame Carrier transition ideas both before and after arbiters Rax Expand!! (a huge system with tons more exploration but right now there are many variations already) + Show Spoiler [Some specific games] + Just grabbed a small selection off the top of my head. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/34967_Calm_vs_Flash http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/36107_Flash_vs_Stork http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/36105_Flash_vs_JangBi http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/35135_Flash_vs_Movie http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/35136_Flash_vs_Movie http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/36573_Flash_vs_Kal http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/36586_Flash_vs_Kal http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/36330_Flash_vs_Kal http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/44891_Jaedong_vs_Light http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/41931_Flash_vs_Jaedong http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/44452_Flash_vs_ZerO http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/44557_EffOrt_vs_Light/vod http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/44966_Flash_vs_Jaedong http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/45289_Flash_vs_free http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/44461_Fantasy_vs_hero http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/44967_Flash_vs_Jaedong http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/44892_Jaedong_vs_Light http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/32785_Fantasy_vs_HoeJJa http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/41930_Flash_vs_Jaedong http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/36498_Action_vs_Midas (midas jaedong odd eye) (hero midas) http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/36902_HoGiL_vs_Midas http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/34773_Flash_vs_type-b http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/30600_Flash_vs_hero http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/34843_Flash_vs_Jaedong As long as the pro scene stays alive in courts BW is fine. SC2 is just new (and getting many temporary tournies/players because of this) and people need a break from BW. Give half a year/year and things should be looking better. | ||
|
Snipinpanda
United States1227 Posts
On May 01 2011 13:08 Snaphoo wrote: The fact that Ja Rule's records sales have been in steady decline since 2001 does not mean he's a good artist, or superior to Justin Bieber or Rebecca Black. And the fact that Lupe Fiasco sells like gangbusters doesn't mean he's worse than Baha Men. I see your point, though-- SC2 may not be inherently good by virtue of its popularity. (Also, Brood War is way better than the Baha Men). I'm just saying that it has a lot of potential, and is growing eSports in the West. And not just as spectators but as players, it's fun to be part of a community that's approaching something closer to mainstream status than any other RTS game in history. I'm just saying it would be fun for you BW fans to play the game a bit and give it a chance, but if it's truly unwatchable and you dislike SC2 indpeendent of your love of BW, then that's cool. I would just love if BW fans didn't feel the need to seclude themselves from SC2 to prove how much better BW is. You're not convincing anyone, you're just missing out on joining the larger SC community! What's stopping from SC2 people to try BW either? SC2 is kinda fun to play occasionally, but from a watchability point of view, it's definitely a lot worse than BW. I mean sure, you could enjoy both, but if you feel one is superior than the other, there's not a lot of incentive to play/watch the other one. It's not secluding from the other side because we're spiteful or whatever. After all, after you've eaten caviar, you're not really willing to eat trash, even if the trash is really shiny and cool-looking. | ||
|
hmmm...
632 Posts
On May 01 2011 13:08 Snaphoo wrote: The fact that Ja Rule's records sales have been in steady decline since 2001 does not mean he's a good artist, or superior to Justin Bieber or Rebecca Black. And the fact that Lupe Fiasco sells like gangbusters doesn't mean he's worse than Baha Men. I see your point, though-- SC2 may not be inherently good by virtue of its popularity. (Also, Brood War is way better than the Baha Men). I'm just saying that it has a lot of potential, and is growing eSports in the West. And not just as spectators but as players, it's fun to be part of a community that's approaching something closer to mainstream status than any other RTS game in history. I'm just saying it would be fun for you BW fans to play the game a bit and give it a chance, but if it's truly unwatchable and you dislike SC2 indpeendent of your love of BW, then that's cool. I would just love if BW fans didn't feel the need to seclude themselves from SC2 to prove how much better BW is. You're not convincing anyone, you're just missing out on joining the larger SC community! you write as if you're assuming people here have never played or watched sc2. most of us have already played sc2 and watched sc2. how else would we know sc2 is just a blob vs blob fest? i watched a lot of sc2 at first because of the novelty but once the novelty died off, i realized how inferior this game is to BW. you probably watched the recent match in which boxer used cloaked ghosts to emp right? well people were going ape-shit crazy saying omfg that's the best game ever and even moletrap was going crazy. well basically, that game was just this: both players build up a giant force without really doing anything to each other because they're too scared, since one bad blob vs blob battle is GG in sc2. so two blobs walk back and forth until boxer emps all the opponents sentries (precisely because they're all in a blob formation) then boxer a-moves into the opponents blob and wins. that's it. GG indeed....ahem. the fact that sc2 guys go ape-shit crazy over such a game just goes to show the low standards of the quality of sc2 pro matches. like, how boring must most sc2 games be for people to recommend that game? well to each his/her own but don't think we haven't given sc2 a shot. most of us have, and have been disappointed. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:50 Snaphoo wrote: Cool. Since February in SC2: Siege tank expands in TvP Roach-ling early pressure timing to destroy 3 gate expand while taking 3rd ZvP Roach burrow timing to negate sentries in ZvP Thor/Banshee transitions in lategame in TvP Viable Battlecruiser lategame in TvT 6 rax all-ins supportable on 1 base TvX Colossus + Phoenix midgame TvP destroying MMM with Vikings Double Forge timings PvT Infestor/Ling/Ultralisk Zerg composition (total revolution from ling/bling/muta of past 6 months) 3 gate expands becoming mainstream PvT 2 Gate Stargate expand PvZ Like half of those things have been used even in beta... T_____T | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
I'm pretty sure Siege Expand has been there since beta, same for Thor/Banshee and BCs in TvT. It's just that they were forgotten because of various patch changes and gameplay shifts and are now being recycled. Not sure about other MUs, because I avoid anything that has P in it and doesn't at least have T at the same time. The point isn't that there aren't more overall shifts in gameplay in BW, but rather that there are still many, as well as that BW evolves at least as fast as SC2 if you disregard the patch changes (that happens due to several factors, mainly the fact that major patch changes do not allow the "metagame" to stabilize and that BW still has way more talented RTS players pushing the boundries). | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
good games are good games regardless. the "metagame" for marvel vs capcom 2 hardly changed for the last 4 years but big, hyped matches were still big hyped matches. besides, i like bw's sharp and subtle refinements compared to sc2's "lol what crazy strategy will he go for this time!" kind of viewpoint. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On May 01 2011 14:46 hmmm... wrote: you write as if you're assuming people here have never played or watched sc2. most of us have already played sc2 and watched sc2. how else would we know sc2 is just a blob vs blob fest? i watched a lot of sc2 at first because of the novelty but once the novelty died off, i realized how inferior this game is to BW. you probably watched the recent match in which boxer used cloaked ghosts to emp right? well people were going ape-shit crazy saying omfg that's the best game ever and even moletrap was going crazy. well basically, that game was just this: both players build up a giant force without really doing anything to each other because they're too scared, since one bad blob vs blob battle is GG in sc2. so two blobs walk back and forth until boxer emps all the opponents sentries (precisely because they're all in a blob formation) then boxer a-moves into the opponents blob and wins. that's it. GG indeed....ahem. the fact that sc2 guys go ape-shit crazy over such a game just goes to show the low standards of the quality of sc2 pro matches. like, how boring must most sc2 games be for people to recommend that game? well to each his/her own but don't think we haven't given sc2 a shot. most of us have, and have been disappointed. This.. I hardly think it possible that the SC:BW fans wouldnt have jumped onto SC2 as soon as they can.. The fact that we are here now dissing the game only shows that this many people (among many others) have been severely disappointed. MC vs Thorzain or the Boxer game on Shakuras were the best games in SC2, according to many.. The first game involve a few skirmishes, followed by a Toss mistake which handed Terran the game, followed by T's mistake that handed it back. Boxer game on Shakuras is just >.< 1 good EMP = gg. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On May 01 2011 14:46 hmmm... wrote: well basically, that game was just this: both players build up a giant force without really doing anything to each other because they're too scared, since one bad blob vs blob battle is GG in sc2. so two blobs walk back and forth until boxer emps all the opponents sentries (precisely because they're all in a blob formation) then boxer a-moves into the opponents blob and wins. that's it. GG indeed....ahem. I'm sorry but this is just plain ridiculous. Yes I know that SC2 is nowhere near the level of brood war with shit happening all over the map, but you are really exaggerating it, really. In that game the protoss tried to kill boxer early and boxer was trying to drop several times, you're acting like it was a NR 20 game. Oh and the "a-move into the opponents blob" was boxer spotting, scanning, and sniping the observer (the casters missed that part) and then immediately sending in the cloaked ghosts to emp the sentries and then move in with the rest of the army. The irony of your point is that if boxer had actually tried to a-move into that protoss army he would have lost miserably. Once again not the same action that you see in BW, but it's different and it still can be existing to watch. I think a lot of the death balls is because the game hasn't been figured out yet and people are always going to start off abusing the easy to execute strategies. Zerg is already in a situation where they need to try more multitasking because the death ball just doesn't work for them, I just hope Blizzard doesn't patch the game too much to prevent this, I am happy to see that the upcoming patch does not "fix" the problems for zerg. I came into this thread because I was feeling nostalgic and depressed that SC2 isn't as good as BW but after reading a lot of the comments I actually feel better about SC2 and where it is hopefully going. The thing is most if not all the amazing shit in BW that is talked about in this thread did not exist during the first year of it's release, SC2 may have the same name but it is a completely different game and has to be learned from the ground up. The expansions will likely add more depth as well, imagine SC1 without brood war, no lurkers, no corsairs, no DTs, and that first year of the meta game. That is a much more fair comparison than comparing a year of SC2 to 10-15 years of highly developed BW play. Also on the easier interface, I believe this is blown way out of proportion or at least looked at the wrong way. Less time macroing and building shit actually means more possibility of multitasking battles around the map. The real question is will SC2's design be able to reward or punish people who do this instead of balling up their army? People don't do it now because they don't have to - BUT the hope is that some players will starting doing it more and will dominate forcing the game to evolve in that direction, which is actually what happened with BW. Because even the so called "difficult" interface in BW is only as difficult as your opponents makes it to be. How long was it until there was even a pro scene for BW? 2-3 years I think? It didn't become amazing to watch over night. It would be a fun little "experiment" to compare the very first WCG games to SC2, I don't know if those are even recorded anywhere. | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:17 Treemonkeys wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 01 2011 14:46 hmmm... wrote: well basically, that game was just this: both players build up a giant force without really doing anything to each other because they're too scared, since one bad blob vs blob battle is GG in sc2. so two blobs walk back and forth until boxer emps all the opponents sentries (precisely because they're all in a blob formation) then boxer a-moves into the opponents blob and wins. that's it. GG indeed....ahem. I'm sorry but this is just plain ridiculous. Yes I know that SC2 is nowhere near the level of brood war with shit happening all over the map, but you are really exaggerating it, really. In that game the protoss tried to kill boxer early and boxer was trying to drop several times, you're acting like it was a NR 20 game. Oh and the "a-move into the opponents blob" was boxer spotting, scanning, and sniping the observer (the casters missed that part) and then immediately sending in the cloaked ghosts to emp the sentries and then move in with the rest of the army. The irony of your point is that if boxer had actually tried to a-move into that protoss army he would have lost miserably. Once again not the same action that you see in BW, but it's different and it still can be existing to watch. I think a lot of the death balls is because the game hasn't been figured out yet and people are always going to start off abusing the easy to execute strategies. Zerg is already in a situation where they need to try more multitasking because the death ball just doesn't work for them, I just hope Blizzard doesn't patch the game too much to prevent this, I am happy to see that the upcoming patch does not "fix" the problems for zerg. I came into this thread because I was feeling nostalgic and depressed that SC2 isn't as good as BW but after reading a lot of the comments I actually feel better about SC2 and where it is hopefully going. The thing is most if not all the amazing shit in BW that is talked about in this thread did not exist during the first year of it's release, SC2 may have the same name but it is a completely different game and has to be learned from the ground up. The expansions will likely add more depth as well, imagine SC1 without brood war, no lurkers, no corsairs, no DTs, and that first year of the meta game. That is a much more fair comparison than comparing a year of SC2 to 10-15 years of highly developed BW play. Also on the easier interface, I believe this is blown way out of proportion or at least looked at the wrong way. Less time macroing and building shit actually means more possibility of multitasking battles around the map. The real question is will SC2's design be able to reward or punish people who do this instead of balling up their army? People don't do it now because they don't have to - BUT the hope is that some players will starting doing it more and will dominate forcing the game to evolve in that direction, which is actually what happened with BW. Because even the so called "difficult" interface in BW is only as difficult as your opponents makes it to be. How long was it until there was even a pro scene for BW? 2-3 years I think? It didn't become amazing to watch over night. It would be a fun little "experiment" to compare the very first WCG games to SC2, I don't know if those are even recorded anywhere. I watched that Boxer game live when it happened. It was 100% ball vs ball. Boxer walked in and emp'd the P's ball and the P was fucked. Boxer just a-moved in and claimed the win--the nuke was just adding insult to injury, as it didn't even do anything. It was suspenseful though, I'll give it that. BW was pretty much 10 years of amazing shit happening because people had to figure out how to play RTS, so new things were being discovered every year. In 2000, Boxer doing basic dropship micro off 1 base was amazing. Also, SC2 had 12 years to build from BW. They should have gotten it right on the first try, not give a half assed release and hope to fix it with expansions. The new expansions will probably change the game, but I doubt it will give SC2 more "depth" than it already has. | ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
but blizzard should hire* more high skill players or get some designers that really understand brood war... and whats people comparing the scenes between SC1 and SC2 and expecting something similar? two entirely different contexts, one without an esports scene and one that had an esports scene (that the game was designed to be for and had many players that understood the similar aspects about the gameplay), not to mention the fact there was a meaningful beta. stop bringing this up like its a concretely valid point. personally, i prefer to wait on posting about this until the expansion is actually out, when blizzard gets a much better chance at expanding gameplay than just balance patches (which i really think they should stop tinkering with so much). my only real gripes with the game is the one dimensionality of roaches/marauders/immortals and the not so entertaining collision sizes * im retarded in fact i read one of browder's interviews saying he didnt have a favorite brood war progamer. to me this really signifies something about the possible lack of interest/real knowledge in brood war | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:17 Treemonkeys wrote: I'm sorry but this is just plain ridiculous. Yes I know that SC2 is nowhere near the level of brood war with shit happening all over the map, but you are really exaggerating it, really. In that game the protoss tried to kill boxer early and boxer was trying to drop several times, you're acting like it was a NR 20 game. Oh and the "a-move into the opponents blob" was boxer spotting, scanning, and sniping the observer (the casters missed that part) and then immediately sending in the cloaked ghosts to emp the sentries and then move in with the rest of the army. The irony of your point is that if boxer had actually tried to a-move into that protoss army he would have lost miserably. Once again not the same action that you see in BW, but it's different and it still can be existing to watch. I think a lot of the death balls is because the game hasn't been figured out yet and people are always going to start off abusing the easy to execute strategies. Zerg is already in a situation where they need to try more multitasking because the death ball just doesn't work for them, I just hope Blizzard doesn't patch the game too much to prevent this, I am happy to see that the upcoming patch does not "fix" the problems for zerg. I came into this thread because I was feeling nostalgic and depressed that SC2 isn't as good as BW but after reading a lot of the comments I actually feel better about SC2 and where it is hopefully going. The thing is most if not all the amazing shit in BW that is talked about in this thread did not exist during the first year of it's release, SC2 may have the same name but it is a completely different game and has to be learned from the ground up. The expansions will likely add more depth as well, imagine SC1 without brood war, no lurkers, no corsairs, no DTs, and that first year of the meta game. That is a much more fair comparison than comparing a year of SC2 to 10-15 years of highly developed BW play. Also on the easier interface, I believe this is blown way out of proportion or at least looked at the wrong way. Less time macroing and building shit actually means more possibility of multitasking battles around the map. The real question is will SC2's design be able to reward or punish people who do this instead of balling up their army? People don't do it now because they don't have to - BUT the hope is that some players will starting doing it more and will dominate forcing the game to evolve in that direction, which is actually what happened with BW. Because even the so called "difficult" interface in BW is only as difficult as your opponents makes it to be. How long was it until there was even a pro scene for BW? 2-3 years I think? It didn't become amazing to watch over night. It would be a fun little "experiment" to compare the very first WCG games to SC2, I don't know if those are even recorded anywhere. Very well-reasoned, and your last point is the one no Brood War fan has answerd yet-- what did games in 1999 look like? No one knew how to play the game yet, so what were considered "epic games" are trash compared to high level play in today's games. Hell, arguably Brood War shouldn't even be compared to SC2 until Heart of the Swarm is out-- an expansion pack with new units to balance out the game was a key reason StarCraft took off. SC2 is "built like" BW and shares some similarities, but major gameplay and understanding of the game are missing and developing all the time. A BW player like Junwi, who had a far more illustrious career than "failed" 2v2 player NesTea isn't fit to shine NesTea's shoes in SC2. It's a whole new world out there. | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:55 Snaphoo wrote: Very well-reasoned, and your last point is the one no Brood War fan has answerd yet-- what did games in 1999 look like? No one knew how to play the game yet, so what were considered "epic games" are trash compared to high level play in today's games. Hell, arguably Brood War shouldn't even be compared to SC2 until Heart of the Swarm is out-- an expansion pack with new units to balance out the game was a key reason StarCraft took off. SC2 is "built like" BW and shares some similarities, but major gameplay and understanding of the game are missing and developing all the time. A BW player like Junwi, who had a far more illustrious career than "failed" 2v2 player NesTea isn't fit to shine NesTea's shoes in SC2. It's a whole new world out there. Junwi shouldn't be compared to zergbong, who played pro BW to a point much more recent than Junwi (their last notable games are nearly 2 years apart). A much more reasonable comparison would be to Fruitdealer who retired around the same time and was much more successful, albeit not as zergbong. * there is no denying that bw and sc2 are very similar, obviously from the fact that many former BW progamers could switch and play at a pretty high level. major elements of gameplay are not understood? they ARE understood (economy, micro, macro, scouting), but its actually understanding of minor elements of the major elements (most notably exact unit compositions and exact timings) which make the difference between the winners and the losers * it doesnt matter what games looked like in 1999. two entirely different contexts for two different but very similar games. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:55 Snaphoo wrote: Very well-reasoned, and your last point is the one no Brood War fan has answerd yet-- what did games in 1999 look like? No one knew how to play the game yet, so what were considered "epic games" are trash compared to high level play in today's games. Hell, arguably Brood War shouldn't even be compared to SC2 until Heart of the Swarm is out-- an expansion pack with new units to balance out the game was a key reason StarCraft took off. SC2 is "built like" BW and shares some similarities, but major gameplay and understanding of the game are missing and developing all the time. A BW player like Junwi, who had a far more illustrious career than "failed" 2v2 player NesTea isn't fit to shine NesTea's shoes in SC2. It's a whole new world out there. I love sc2 fans with their long type essay trying to sink us into believing their game is much superior in everyway citing out all sc2 players who i never heard of probably known at the depths of abyss who people never give a damn at all .Although to them it's hard for them to swallow that all their top stars players are not of Wc3 or Supreme commander like players but all are players from Bw like the one you are talking about NESTEA originally he is from team KT for your information . I am not buying it sorry no matter how many times you come in and just throw a wall of text of madness at me It doesn't dispute the fact that sc2 is broken visibly . | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 18:11 Sawamura wrote: I love sc2 fans with their long type essay trying to sink us into believing their game is much superior in everyway citing out all sc2 players who i never heard of probably known at the depths of abyss who people never give a damn at all .Although to them it's hard for them to swallow that all their top stars players are not of Wc3 or Supreme commander like players but all are players from Bw like the one you are talking about NESTEA originally he is from team KT for your information . I am not buying it sorry no matter how many times you come in and just throw a wall of text of madness at me It doesn't dispute the fact that sc2 is broken visibly . a) This is mostly incoherent ("citing out all sc2 players who i never heard of probably known at the depths of abyss who people never give a damn at all") b) You clearly are trolling, as no SC2 player in this thread has said SC2 is necessarily better than BW. In fact, I've taken pains to say such comparisons are pointless. c) Who cares if top SC2 players were formerly BW players? What relevance does that have to the overall quality of BW? Or SC2? Is it not logical that the most popular RTS in the eSports world would logically produce most of the early champions of its sequel, even if the games were substantially different? | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
I would still love to hear an up-to-date statement about what he thinks about the balance of offense and defense (not in a dps-to-hitpoint term, but in a relation of how difficult it is to attack a player or defend a push) and what he thinks about the importance of positional units such as Siegetanks, Lurkers. I mean that this after all makes the most significant change between Broodwar and SC2 imo, that there were a lot of units in Broodwar which would have a significant advantage after a setup time and in specific positions, which kinda got lost in SC2 (none of it in ZvP and rarely in TvP). Also, if he regrets that there are so way less units with cost-efficiency depending on micro (Reaver-Shuttle, Vulturemines) and that micro as a result of that was mainly boiled down to positioning. This is not supposed to be a rant on SC2, I would just be curious what Blizzard's position on these things. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:55 Snaphoo wrote: Very well-reasoned, and your last point is the one no Brood War fan has answerd yet-- what did games in 1999 look like? No one knew how to play the game yet, so what were considered "epic games" are trash compared to high level play in today's games. Hell, arguably Brood War shouldn't even be compared to SC2 until Heart of the Swarm is out-- an expansion pack with new units to balance out the game was a key reason StarCraft took off. SC2 is "built like" BW and shares some similarities, but major gameplay and understanding of the game are missing and developing all the time. A BW player like Junwi, who had a far more illustrious career than "failed" 2v2 player NesTea isn't fit to shine NesTea's shoes in SC2. It's a whole new world out there. Sorry but you either clearly havnt read the replies in the thread, or are deliberately ignoring some of them. There were so many replies to that miserable argument even the Brood War people are asking others to stop repeating the same points all over again. Edit: Comparing yourself with Starcraft 1 wont get you anywhere. Starcraft 1 was a plain old RTS, with little to no international appearances whatsoever. SC2 is claiming itself to be the next generation's leading e-sport, so shouldnt it be compared to the current success, aka Brood War?.. Saying "But im more interesting than Pokemon" doesnt matter squat, we were talking about e-Sport, iirc. (Although to be honest i feel Pokemon is still more exciting a game) | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
BW vs WC2. The video "MBS before MBS" is pretty hilarious, but its point is pretty stupid. WC2 is a pretty intersting competitive game, and it requires a lot of skill. There are a few good reasons for playing starcraft and not warcraft 2, despite the "noob friendliness", namely that there is more than one playable race in bw, and there is no half broken unit in it. Innovation in bw. First, one has to understand that today, bw is such a complex game that very few people have the ability to make innovations, and that us the spectators perceive only a fraction of it. I'll quote Ver here : Unfortunately for those who wish to be unique, creating valid strategies in Starcraft since 2000 requires an extremely high level of knowledge that only a few people in the world possess. Sadly, that list probably isn't going to include you or anyone who can read this. Even in the pro scene there are only a select few people per era who really create game-changing strategies and the rest simply copy them. That is simply the truth of how complex SC really is (as well as a result of progamer training regimes). Plus, saying that TvZ is only 1rax expand is not only false, but exactly like saying there is no innovation in chess beause everybody plays 1. e4. Understand : there are many, many subtle variations of it. And while we can't pu our finger on it every time, the result is that every bio TvZ seems to have a pretty different dynamic. Nevertheless, even I D/D- player on iccup can remember a few more innovations on the top of my head. Fanta's build vs Stork in every single game of their final (Flash seems to have tried a variation of Fanta's 5 fact against Bisu in their winner league game, but we might never know what was his gameplan exactly). Hiya Bio answer to 2-base carrier. Another good answer to 12 nex, which seems to be solved except on cross position by mind against Stork. Jaedong seems to have a new way to answer the one-year old idea of MnM pressure at muta harass timing (quite reminiscent of the borrowed ling build he tried in a final, but here he tries to micro in a way in which he forces stim... Yes, an innovation is not only a change in BO in the 5 first minutes). I also saw some clever "cheeses" by Stork against Flash and Jaedong. Stork's build against 1 rax FE (one gate core expo reaver expo). A new kind of vulture-heavy mech transition in TvZ. I'm pretty sure TvT is evolving atm, because it has never seemed so dynamic since Flash's 22-win streak has forced every other terran to dramatically improve in the match-up. But here my knowledge fails me. Bisu seems to have quite a few funny heavy-zealots build recently. Stork early third against hydra (probably needs a bit more storm research). Great funny scouting in ZvZ (:p) I might have to stop here maybe, I've got some other things to say... Oh yeah, and the, how was bw in 1999 or something. I'm not sure, but we can find VODs in 2001, and the comparison here in term of strategy quality is probably extremely skewed in favor of sc2 (because, as it has been repeated, the idea that the best way to play was to play a macro game, ie try to find an optimal way to develop your economy and army, which means cutting corner in your bo etc etc was not really around here before oov, and that thought, while simple, is responsible for most of bw moder development. And I'm not talking about how Nada showed the importance of mechanics, that nobody denies today in sc2, or sAviOr whose gameplan ZvT is a model of thinking in terms of timing, maneuvering and long term gameplan still unparalled and which has a tremendous influence on how people think about build in sc2. And more specifically for instance, the idea of forge fast-expand took year to think of in bw, and sc2 players regularly use it after a year. So please stop saying bw has not helped sc2 in any way...) Well, while the strategy were clearly not optimal, it certainly wasn't blob vs blob. While the Boxer vs Garimto game quoted by a sc2 fan above is not that great (it trumps a big majority of sc2 games imo), it was certainly not that hard to look at the game 5 of that same serie, that qualifies as a ver very good game in my opinion. The games between Boxer and Yellow a bit earlier were also pretty amazing. Boxer vs Blackman comes to mind too. There were some great games in the grr vs HOT finals too.For the rest, I don't know, because thre simply isn't that many sources. pimpest play are pretty interesting to watch too. So bw, while strategically underdevelopped, was still an incredible spectator sport, and there are still pretty big resemblance to today's games. That might explain its success in part, don't you think... (here comes a sc2 part, i'll admit to the possibility of a bias there, but that's really how I feel) Now fast forward to Boxers game today, In his latest serie in GSL, his main game plan seemed to be, "let's reach 200/200 in the best possible conditions". And the only game were there was something else than blob vs blob only in game 3, where boxer made some interesting sttempt at multi-pronged attacks, but was not very successful. I'd say that is representative of the vast majority of the sc2 games i've watched, including highly rated games such as Squirtle vs MVP in GSTL if I'm not mistaken (was it the frst macro game ever or something ?). In conclusion, I'll say a few things. I had hopes for sc2, but it dissapointed me. it might get better or it might not, but I don't really care, because for me "esport development" is not a goal in itself. There are games I find worth watching (bw and... quake, I'm not that closed minded you see, and I'm not a fps player), and I hope that I can continue to watch them in the future in the same way I hope a good TV show or rugby and handball become more popular. And at least, SC2 will have had the positive effect of making it a whole lot easier to explain my love for bw to many people. I just wish SC2 people would not spread misinformations about bw. | ||
|
hmmm...
632 Posts
On May 01 2011 17:17 Treemonkeys wrote: I'm sorry but this is just plain ridiculous. Yes I know that SC2 is nowhere near the level of brood war with shit happening all over the map, but you are really exaggerating it, really. In that game the protoss tried to kill boxer early and boxer was trying to drop several times, you're acting like it was a NR 20 game. Oh and the "a-move into the opponents blob" was boxer spotting, scanning, and sniping the observer (the casters missed that part) and then immediately sending in the cloaked ghosts to emp the sentries and then move in with the rest of the army. The irony of your point is that if boxer had actually tried to a-move into that protoss army he would have lost miserably. Once again not the same action that you see in BW, but it's different and it still can be existing to watch. yes i watched the game, and there were some drop attempts by boxer. of course there were things going on during the game, but were there different battles happening in different parts of the map? at least some major harrassments worth noting? skirmishes? guerilla tactics? nope. that's why i didn't mention anything. i didn't notice the sniping, but that still doesn't change the fact after he emped the blob of protoss army, he just a-moved and won. i don't get why you are saying my point is ironic because i clearly said boxer a-moves AFTER he emps the army. my point is, in sc2 we're seeing a PROFESSIONAL gamers, even those who came from a BW background, devolve into the pattern of building up a sizeable ball of army, and attacking each other in one big fight that ends the game pretty much. yes there is harrassment and other stuff going on in the game as well (like proxy warping, etc) but the when it comes to the important major battles, that's pretty much what it is, ball vs ball. and in sc2, everything dies extremely quick so it's extremely anti-climatic. also, the nature of the spells is not fun to watch. when your roaches are force fielded, zerg really can't do shit at that stage. they're just stuck, nothing you can do. when you see a crap load of psi storms, given that it's not awe-inspiring anymore to see multiple storms casted like that and that they're so weak now, it's not that exciting to watch. when you see fungal growth, now the time is so short it's acting just like a insta dmg dealing mini psi storm; think whatever you want but trying convincing yourself that most sc2 games don't end with a blob vs blob fest, i'm sure it won't be easy. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
SC2 could be a great game as it is right now if Blizzard stops patching the game every month.Well at least after the upcoming patch. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
When I say remove MBS (to some extent), this should probably not affect Warp Gates too much (having to hotkey all of them or click back and forth really fast would be a huger handicap compared to Terran or Zerg lacking MBS). Warp Gates would be possibly be limited to 4 or 6 per selection instead of 1. So what do you think of the idea of making SC2 mechanically harder on a higher level of play (Masters + Grand Masters + Tournament play) while still allowing "casuals" to play with things like smart cast, unlimited selection (structures too), etc? A lot of the things (somethings harder than others) are possible using the galaxy editor (the remade SC1 mod for SC2 for example). Though I agree that sadly a lot of the units with interesting mechanics (Vultures, Lurkers, Reavers, etc) were replaced with "a-moving" units such as marauders and colossi for example. I just like to add, a lot of people do not like Force Fields in SC2 (mainly because it prevents the opposing player from doing anything to stop it ) but if smart cast was removed for Force Fields, it'd mean seeing Force Fields used would actually be impressive considering how fast you have to click each Sentry individually and use force fields to create a wall. In that case while someone who is good at Force Fields would prevent the opponent from doing anything, it'd at least be really hard to pull off. (Disclaimer - I'm not stating Protoss is IMBA or anything. I'm taking the results of "people don't like force fields" from a thread/poll in the SC2 section regarding whether they like abilities that take away micro from the opposing player). | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:38 BLinD-RawR wrote: I always wondered why everyone went ball vs ball in SC2 in the first place....I guess lazyness because these days anyone who tries to mass ball gets smashed so hard and positional play does so much better.... SC2 could be a great game as it is right now if Blizzard stops patching the game every month.Well at least after the upcoming patch. Because it is easier that way, if you attack in 1a group your units will automatically form a perfect arc/concave for you, why would you try and do something different?For Protoss especially, the ball attack of Protoss is so powerfull , and if you get flanked you can forcefield and create your own choke, there is no reason at all to do so otherwise save from ghosts. | ||
|
Megakenny
Canada829 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:47 Goldfish wrote: In term of SC2 catering to casuals - What if they made Masters and Grand Masters "harder" by removing smart cast , MBS (to some extent), limit of 12 units in each group, automine, and other stuff (this of course would apply only to Masters and Grand Masters and an option in custom games for practice)? When I say remove MBS (to some extent), this should probably not affect Warp Gates too much (having to hotkey all of them or click back and forth really fast would be a huger handicap compared to Terran or Zerg lacking MBS). Warp Gates would be possibly be limited to 4 or 6 per selection instead of 1. So what do you think of the idea of making SC2 mechanically harder on a higher level of play (Masters + Grand Masters + Tournament play) while still allowing "casuals" to play with things like smart cast, unlimited selection (structures too), etc? A lot of the things (somethings harder than others) are possible using the galaxy editor (the remade SC1 mod for SC2 for example). Though I agree that sadly a lot of the units with interesting mechanics (Vultures, Lurkers, Reavers, etc) were replaced with "a-moving" units such as marauders and colossi for example. I just like to add, a lot of people do not like Force Fields in SC2 (mainly because it prevents the opposing player from doing anything to stop it ) but if smart cast was removed for Force Fields, it'd mean seeing Force Fields used would actually be impressive considering how fast you have to click each Sentry individually and use force fields to create a wall. In that case while someone who is good at Force Fields would prevent the opponent from doing anything, it'd at least be really hard to pull off. (Disclaimer - I'm not stating Protoss is IMBA or anything. I'm taking the results of "people don't like force fields" from a thread/poll in the SC2 section regarding whether they like abilities that take away micro from the opposing player). So if Iwas a new player to SC2, worked my way up the ladder to Masters after many hours of practice just to have the mechanics change and get stomped into the ground by other players who are used to it would I want to continue playing? Probably not. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:54 Megakenny wrote: So if Iwas a new player to SC2, worked my way up the ladder to Masters after many hours of practice just to have the mechanics change and get stomped into the ground by other players who are used to it would I want to continue playing? Probably not. Yes that would be an issue :\. Though that's just one idea. Having it based on Rank is just an example (but it wouldn't be a good idea I guess due to your example). Another way to do this is to add an option for players to have easier or harder mechanics in the lower leagues but in Masters or higher, it will be enforced to have the harder mechanics. That way they can practice the lack of MBS, smart cast, etc in lower leagues (of course the player will be "handicapped" against players who do not have the "easier mechanics" disabled ). Again though this is just an example of what could be done. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:47 Goldfish wrote: In term of SC2 catering to casuals - What if they made Masters and Grand Masters "harder" by removing smart cast , MBS (to some extent), limit of 12 units in each group, automine, and other stuff (this of course would apply only to Masters and Grand Masters and an option in custom games for practice)? When I say remove MBS (to some extent), this should probably not affect Warp Gates too much (having to hotkey all of them or click back and forth really fast would be a huger handicap compared to Terran or Zerg lacking MBS). Warp Gates would be possibly be limited to 4 or 6 per selection instead of 1. So what do you think of the idea of making SC2 mechanically harder on a higher level of play (Masters + Grand Masters + Tournament play) while still allowing "casuals" to play with things like smart cast, unlimited selection (structures too), etc? A lot of the things (somethings harder than others) are possible using the galaxy editor (the remade SC1 mod for SC2 for example). Though I agree that sadly a lot of the units with interesting mechanics (Vultures, Lurkers, Reavers, etc) were replaced with "a-moving" units such as marauders and colossi for example. I just like to add, a lot of people do not like Force Fields in SC2 (mainly because it prevents the opposing player from doing anything to stop it ) but if smart cast was removed for Force Fields, it'd mean seeing Force Fields used would actually be impressive considering how fast you have to click each Sentry individually and use force fields to create a wall. In that case while someone who is good at Force Fields would prevent the opponent from doing anything, it'd at least be really hard to pull off. (Disclaimer - I'm not stating Protoss is IMBA or anything. I'm taking the results of "people don't like force fields" from a thread/poll in the SC2 section regarding whether they like abilities that take away micro from the opposing player). This is a bad idea, as you basically have two different games then, that and SC2 lacks much more then lack MBS and automining, even if it had no automining or MBS it would still be an inferior spectator game due to other factors. Throwing MBS and automing out if it won't fix it. | ||
|
xccam
Great Britain1150 Posts
| ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
Point is, we're using this as proof that the devs don't know a damn thing about SCBW. There's no real way you can debate our viewpoint since plain and simple, a lot of us were around in SC2 before any of you were. Most of us were around during the beta. The SC2 fanboys here are too recently-joined to even have been a part of that. Point-and-case, we know more about your game than you apparently, while simultaneously understanding BW much deeper because we obsess over it in a fashion SC2 people do not. Sorry to say, but BW was a hardcore game because only obsessive people ever learn anything in it. You can't just become an "A" by playing casually. Also, stop stealing units from C&C3 (Banshee=Orca). | ||
|
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:59 Goldfish wrote: Yes that would be an issue :\. Though that's just one idea. Having it based on Rank is just an example (but it wouldn't be a good idea I guess due to your example). Another way to do this is to add an option for players to have easier or harder mechanics in the lower leagues but in Masters or higher, it will be enforced to have the harder mechanics. That way they can practice the lack of MBS, smart cast, etc in lower leagues (of course the player will be "handicapped" against players who do not have the "easier mechanics" disabled ). Again though this is just an example of what could be done. I think it'd just be better to keep the "easier" mechanics such as automine/mbs/smartcast in place, but then add incentive to do things manually.. like commanding a worker to mine manually vs automining will let the worker mine 5-10% faster, or if you smartcast there is a 1-2 second delay between each cast (but not for every spell imo, FF could have no delay but Storm would have it). Then again, if they did this there'd be a lot of whiners saying how it doesn't "add anything to the spectator value" : P Haven't really read this thread through, but I guess I'll spend some time reading through it to see what's going on lol hmm couple things I'd like to address before I knock out: first of all, the argument that an easier interface will lead to more multitasking with multiple battles around the map. First of all, that's clearly not the case in SC2 as of now (due to unit/race designs), and SC2 won't ever have more multitasking that BW does already. Progamers in BW are already multitasking at human limits, giving them an easier interface won't give these BW progamers any more ability to multitask because SBS/notautomine/nosmartcasting/control groups are simply thoughtless second nature to these mechanical beasts. And to compare the first years of SC1 to SC2 is ridiculous. SC1 had almost nothing to draw upon from prior games, whereas SC2 got standardized fairly quickly due to drawing upon concepts from BW's strategic developments. SC1 Vanilla is more fun to watch than SC2 anyways Too many people dismiss SC1 Vanilla's depth, when it's actually pretty damn interesting even without those key units from BW. | ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
On May 01 2011 22:19 ArvickHero wrote: And to compare the first years of SC1 to SC2 is ridiculous. SC1 had almost nothing to draw upon from prior games, whereas SC2 got standardized fairly quickly due to drawing upon concepts from BW's strategic developments. SC1 Vanilla is more fun to watch than SC2 anyways Too many people dismiss SC1 Vanilla's depth, when it's actually pretty damn interesting even without those key units from BW.Vanilla and SC2 both have massive balance issues and are equally unexciting when it comes to battles. I don't know what depth you're talking about but I played vanilla longer than most people and it didn't have much of it. Broodwar changed everything and I think HotS has the same chance if they don't fuck it up. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3126 Posts
On May 01 2011 23:08 Skew wrote: Vanilla and SC2 both have massive balance issues and are equally unexciting when it comes to battles. I don't know what depth you're talking about but I played vanilla longer than most people and it didn't have much of it. Broodwar changed everything and I think HotS has the same chance if they don't fuck it up. "Ok Blizzard i'll pay a bunch of money for your game even though I think its terrible and then later I'll pay a bunch more money for your attempts to fix it becuase a long time ago you sucked at making games balanced before the expansions also." blizzard fail = you giving blizzard more money really dude? YAY $100 spent from me and everyone loyal to esports straight to blizzard! Everyone support sc2 and esports in the west so i can feel less like a loser when I say I watch video games on my computer! | ||
|
avatarofjustice
Barbados24 Posts
| ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
| ||
|
mmdmmd
722 Posts
Nada in SC2, TvX, makes XnX ball, 1st major attack, fails, reaches for the G button. 2 very similar situation, but the result is 2 very different player mentality. Understand why will make SC2 a much better game. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On May 02 2011 00:38 mmdmmd wrote: Nada in BW, TvX, makes XnX ball, 1st major attack, fails, goes back to plan next move. Nada in SC2, TvX, makes XnX ball, 1st major attack, fails, reaches for the G button. 2 very similar situation, but the result is 2 very different player mentality. Understand why will make SC2 a much better game. I've been hearing that its not that true recently...but I've only been hearing,so far the TSL hasn't been that way though since its the only one I watch. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On May 01 2011 13:08 Snaphoo wrote: The fact that Ja Rule's records sales have been in steady decline since 2001 does not mean he's a good artist, or superior to Justin Bieber or Rebecca Black. And the fact that Lupe Fiasco sells like gangbusters doesn't mean he's worse than Baha Men. I see your point, though-- SC2 may not be inherently good by virtue of its popularity. (Also, Brood War is way better than the Baha Men). I'm just saying that it has a lot of potential, and is growing eSports in the West. And not just as spectators but as players, it's fun to be part of a community that's approaching something closer to mainstream status than any other RTS game in history. I'm just saying it would be fun for you BW fans to play the game a bit and give it a chance, but if it's truly unwatchable and you dislike SC2 indpeendent of your love of BW, then that's cool. I would just love if BW fans didn't feel the need to seclude themselves from SC2 to prove how much better BW is. You're not convincing anyone, you're just missing out on joining the larger SC community! Why are you even posting on this forum. We don't like the game, you're not going to convince anyone that they actually do like it. I don't find it entertaining to spectate at all. Also it's probably not actually as big as you think it is.... its not anymore mainstream than previous RTS like WC3 in it's peak, that's bullshit. Blizzard doesn't even let you see stats of solely SC2 people on bnet to even check, but i seriously doubt theres much more people playing than what BW/WC3 used to have. Nobody wants to waste time watching or playing a game they don't find fun simply because other people are doing it, or 'wow it'll get better in the future' or saying it's got **POTENTIAL**, prehaps the SC2 fan's favourite buzzword along with calling us elitists for having a preference. | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50117 Posts
On May 02 2011 00:45 infinity2k9 wrote: Why are you even posting on this forum. We don't like the game, you're not going to convince anyone that they actually do like it. I don't find it entertaining to spectate at all. I actually didn't read this post by snap...wtf you don't tell people what they should like and tell them to join the larger community. I found it odd though that of all the people,Waxangle found SC2 interesting...or maybe it was just the storyline of that one player. | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
Edit: Misread Ow yeah, for god sakes people, where the hell do you get the idea that we don't play nor watch SC2?I both play and watch SC2(Albeit not on a daily basis but I catch alot of games). I watched it, I gave it a chance, and ill wait for it to improve if it will ever because right now it is only marginally enjoyable as an E-sport relative to Brood War. Larger community/=fun community imo, with the grand surge of SC2 players come alot of fun players, alot of good players, alot of helpfull players, but the sword is double-edged as we all know. Granted I haven't been here for a long time, (posting, lurker longer)but I know that that the sword is double-edged. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On May 01 2011 20:47 Goldfish wrote: So what do you think of the idea of making SC2 mechanically harder on a higher level of play (Masters + Grand Masters + Tournament play) while still allowing "casuals" to play with things like smart cast, unlimited selection (structures too), etc? i actually don't care much for MBS/automining, i really don't think it has a big effect as most people are saying. 12 unit selection is a pretty big change as is smartcast. but really you should design a modern game with those in mind and then balance it off of that. smartcast + AoE is really not a good game design. design the game so that you can select all your units and 1A, but give people good reasons not to. i would rather have them rethink their current units and spells and adjust all of those. i'd get rid of all the "macro" mechanics, increase the mining rate and make it only one geyser again (because seriously, why would you want a game where a 200/200 army has 80 workers?)... really there's a lot you can do to make the game on the level of BW without making it BW. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 01 2011 19:51 ffreakk wrote: Sorry but you either clearly havnt read the replies in the thread, or are deliberately ignoring some of them. There were so many replies to that miserable argument even the Brood War people are asking others to stop repeating the same points all over again. Edit: Comparing yourself with Starcraft 1 wont get you anywhere. Starcraft 1 was a plain old RTS, with little to no international appearances whatsoever. SC2 is claiming itself to be the next generation's leading e-sport, so shouldnt it be compared to the current success, aka Brood War?.. Saying "But im more interesting than Pokemon" doesnt matter squat, we were talking about e-Sport, iirc. (Although to be honest i feel Pokemon is still more exciting a game) This is my 2nd-to-last post on this issue, because I wanted to point out that I did read these replies and refuted them. SC2 at the 8 month mark should NOT be compared to Brood War at the 10+ year mark because no RTS game of repute comes out of the box fully balanced and with optimal playstyles clear. SC2 of course has mistakes and imbalances, just as SC Vanilla had mutalisks, among other things. SC2 is better compared to SC Vanilla because the developers clearly were not trying to simply update BW with graphics; though they built on many of the same mechanics. They were trying to create a new game, which is why comparing a 10+ year old expansion pack to an 8-month old game is so ludicrous. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
On May 02 2011 00:48 BLinD-RawR wrote: I actually didn't read this post by snap...wtf you don't tell people what they should like and tell them to join the larger community. I found it odd though that of all the people,Waxangle found SC2 interesting...or maybe it was just the storyline of that one player. ? I wasn't telling people what to like, just suggesting hating SC2 to prove BW is better doesn't make any sense. I'm done for now, though. BW fans are welcome to their echo chamber. | ||
|
qdenser
Canada133 Posts
On May 02 2011 02:27 Snaphoo wrote: ? I wasn't telling people what to like, just suggesting hating SC2 to prove BW is better doesn't make any sense. I'm done for now, though. BW fans are welcome to their echo chamber. 10 trillion posts later you're done. take a breather champ | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
On May 02 2011 02:26 Snaphoo wrote: This is my 2nd-to-last post on this issue, because I wanted to point out that I did read these replies and refuted them. SC2 at the 8 month mark should NOT be compared to Brood War at the 10+ year mark because no RTS game of repute comes out of the box fully balanced and with optimal playstyles clear. SC2 of course has mistakes and imbalances, just as SC Vanilla had mutalisks, among other things. SC2 is better compared to SC Vanilla because the developers clearly were not trying to simply update BW with graphics; though they built on many of the same mechanics. They were trying to create a new game, which is why comparing a 10+ year old expansion pack to an 8-month old game is so ludicrous. The passage you quoted already answer your post. There are many things to be said, but i ll just ask you again why are you comparing SC2 with SC1 vanilla? Edit: Things are kept in wraps here in the BW forums, we dont go to SC2 section and broadcast it. So you shouldnt have any problem and i really dont see your reason to persistently advertise ur little toy here. | ||
|
ndralcasid
United States524 Posts
| ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
On May 02 2011 00:45 BLinD-RawR wrote: I've been hearing that its not that true recently...but I've only been hearing,so far the TSL hasn't been that way though since its the only one I watch. I think it depends from engagements and how you do it. For example, in Boxer v. Sen (TvZ) at the TSL3, Boxer pushed with small groups of tank+marine whole game, (like 4-5 tanks, and 25 or so marines) and traded with Sen as evenly as he could. He kept the Zerg under pressure, with drops, good map control and nicely timed attacks, that he prevented Zerg from getting the huge economic lead which leads to bazillion banelings/lings/mutas rolling into the Terran and obliterating him. Because splash damage is too good in SC2 (clumping mechanic), it is very easy to lose your whole army if you aren't careful. So, if Boxer actually turtled to like 150 food and then sent his whole mega giant 8 tank 60 marine 5 medivac force to attack, the Zerg would have for the most of the time crushed that force with good infestor, ling/bling and muta usage (even Ultras if he was left alone) and Boxer would probably instantly lose there. This is because the Zerg can reinforce super quickly, and the factory units that Terran needs to protect his marines from banelings, take long time to reinforce compared to a ton of larva that the Zerg can stockpile. So instead of boxing the mega big deathball and charging with yelling "ATTACK!!", Boxer did it with small but effective pushes, so even if he lost his army, the game wouldn't be over. It's the same with TvP. Select v. Incontrol in MLG Dallas, SeleCT played amazing, multi prong harrassment, expanding like crazy and through impressive economy management he created so much of an advantage for him that he managed to end the game about when Incontrol got his third. But, if SeleCT turtled instead, and sent his MMM+Viking force, Incontrol would have crushed it (he might have even had Templars at that point!) because of the Colossus numbers that Terran needs to trade with his vikings to survive in the engagements. In the aforementioned game, SeleCT's multitasking and superior unit control overpowered Incontrol, so there wasn't really much he could do as SeleCT played godly. People only see "blob vs blob it's boring" which has some sort of truth into it but it really depends on the players and their style. Boxer had a second small force ready at his natural, so even if he lost his initial attack force, he was able to go pressure once again. Sen always love to drone hard so Boxer's first timing attack coincided with the round of drones Sen was morphing, so he was able to take out the third (he lost his army though) but again, in 1-2 minutes, he was ready to push again. What Sen needed was better scouting (so he wouldn't drone like a madman while Boxer was getting ready for a timing attack) and produce the units needed to thwart off the attack so that he would be able to protect his third. In that case, Boxer wouldn't be that far behind because he'd still have a small force he could threaten Sen with (provided it was an even trade, if his tanks got caught unsieged on creep to ling/bling, it could be different). Boxer kept expanding behind his pushes while not letting Sen have a minute of free breath. ZvP is different, the issue is still trading as even as you can with the Colossus while having the ground army to fight the Stalkers. Zerg needs to capitalize the larvae count he can utilize to reinforce and crush the deathball in waves, but it is not easy because of force fields and colossus being too efficient at killing stuff. So Zerg tries to prevent Toss from taking a third, and trade as even as he can with Toss while expanding and protecting those expansions. Sadly, once Protoss breaks the Zerg army without losing much, the game is over, as for the most of the time Zerg cannot regroup to handle the impending Protoss attack. So ZvP is different, but there are still games that turn up interesting moments so it's not like all bad. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
| ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
On May 02 2011 04:25 infinity2k9 wrote: Uhh i don't even see the point of that long post... you don't need to explain whole games to people, i'm sure he understood what was happening in the games. Nobody said EVERY game is blob vs blob, so there's no need to keep bringing up examples and making huge posts saying what happens in them. But there certainly is a lot of games where it is blob vs blob and one engagement decides the game. When i've watched random streams of tournaments or just people playing most of the games to me are pretty boring. True and all I'm trying to say by that long post is that players aren't playing correctly when you see the big blob v. blob where one gets crushed and cannot comeback. Because going for the blob route is super risky, it could work when used right (huge mech mega pushes against Zerg with Thor Tank Helion before broodlords) but not usually because you basically leave the game on your opponent's hands as if he manages to hold it off, you're dead. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
IntoTheEmo
Singapore1169 Posts
The ability to create units instantly anywhere is another example. Positional play is so essential in BW, and yet Warp Gates were introduced that removed the defender's advantage and creates the element of guessing where the plyon is over superior scouting to know when they're moving out etc. In short, I play SC2 with my friends for fun, and sometimes I feel like I'm playing Red Alert 2 in space, where Warp Gates are Chrono Legionnaires, Colossi are Prism Tanks, MULEs are Ore Purifiers, and Sensor Towers are well, Psychic Sensor. Like, it's really clear that they did not study BW at all, even the small things like mineral positions on maps where they would be further away from the worker spawn points - BW doesn't have minerals above the CC at the mains now. I mean is it really that hard to learn from the eSports phenomenon that is the predecessor of your new game? Because some of the things are pretty obvious. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On May 02 2011 07:08 IntoTheEmo wrote: Was already clear from the beginning that he and the devs had no idea. Example in question? MULEs. Everyone knows economy plays a huge role in Starcraft, yet they design an ability, imbalanced or not, that manipulate it to such an extent. The ability to create units instantly anywhere is another example. Positional play is so essential in BW, and yet Warp Gates were introduced that removed the defender's advantage and creates the element of guessing where the plyon is over superior scouting to know when they're moving out etc. In short, I play SC2 with my friends for fun, and sometimes I feel like I'm playing Red Alert 2 in space, where Warp Gates are Chrono Legionnaires, Colossi are Prism Tanks, MULEs are Ore Purifiers, and Sensor Towers are well, Psychic Sensor. Like, it's really clear that they did not study BW at all, even the small things like mineral positions on maps where they would be further away from the worker spawn points - BW doesn't have minerals above the CC at the mains now. I mean is it really that hard to learn from the eSports phenomenon that is the predecessor of your new game? Because some of the things are pretty obvious. Thank you! People discussing here their favorite Game and favorite players comparing them from BW and SC2. which was not the thread is all about. It's about the Dev of SC2 being oblivious as to what made BW great. If they were constructing SC2 with E-SPORT in mind, they should have studied BW and it's evolution from 200X to 2010. But you can't truly blame Browder though, clueless as he is, 3 years, I think, is not enough to understand BW as a whole let alone study it's constant evolution since even as of today it's still evolving. But then again, this evolution didn't came from Blizzard nor BW's lead designer. It came from the community. The community is the only one who knows what it want. The community should be the one doing the balancing, not Blizzard nor the clueless Browder. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
It's like the reaper too before they fixed it. An early game unit that can jump up cliffs completely avoiding ramps, another crucial feature of map design. Ignoring the fact it doesn't even seem to fit Terran as a concept, it's just a poor idea that was clearly going to cause problems. Then you got copying the idea of rocks from BW pro maps and just putting them everywhere, without any reasoning behind it or thought. Or how about making phoenix's 'moving shot' completely what people didn't ask for, with zero skill involved? Or how about when they completely screwed up Ultralisk splash so it hurt units not even near it? All these things seem to suggest to me lack of real thought going into things. I really question what Dbro as the lead designer really added to the game at all, outside of the SP. Unit's like the Thor i expect. | ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
On May 02 2011 01:09 kainzero wrote: i actually don't care much for MBS/automining, i really don't think it has a big effect as most people are saying. 12 unit selection is a pretty big change as is smartcast. but really you should design a modern game with those in mind and then balance it off of that. smartcast + AoE is really not a good game design. design the game so that you can select all your units and 1A, but give people good reasons not to. i would rather have them rethink their current units and spells and adjust all of those. i'd get rid of all the "macro" mechanics, increase the mining rate and make it only one geyser again (because seriously, why would you want a game where a 200/200 army has 80 workers?)... really there's a lot you can do to make the game on the level of BW without making it BW. True that!!! i think i should hang out in BW forum more posts here are defo more mature <3i personally only enjoy a game/sport where it is balanced to a certain extend. As a zerg i really feel like i am losing interest to sc2 and this interview made me didnt touch the game for 3days now. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5540 Posts
| ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
the attack priority AI is pretty unfair especially if you think about in sc2 x unit are hard counter to specific armor type of x unit. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On May 02 2011 19:05 maybenexttime wrote: I don't think smart-cast is good for gameplay. It's either smart-cast and mediocre spells or no smart-cast and dramatic spells. I prefer the latter. It's not like a modern RTS needs it either - no CNC game to date had it afaik. I would also prefer no smart cast but it's all academic now. MBS i can live with , same with unlimited unit selection , but the spells in SC2 are just bland bland bland. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
Back when Browder worked on C&C Generals, a lot of C&C fans were complaining that Generals was taking too many cues from Starcraft and other traditional RTS games. Lots of C&C fans were mad at the traditional bottom-bar UI, more traditional base-building, and more traditional unit production. Many did not consider Generals to be a true C&C game, especially since the side-bar UI and con-yard system were replaced with more traditional systems very similar to Starcraft-esque games. Nevertheless, I had tons of fun with Generals and its plethora of user-made mods. Anyways, carry on with your SC2 vs BW discussion. | ||
|
IntoTheEmo
Singapore1169 Posts
On May 02 2011 19:39 eviltomahawk wrote: I find it ironic that some people complain about SC2's design taking too many cues from C&C. Back when Browder worked on C&C Generals, a lot of C&C fans were complaining that Generals was taking too many cues from Starcraft and other traditional RTS games. Lots of C&C fans were mad at the traditional bottom-bar UI, more traditional base-building, and more traditional unit production. Many did not consider Generals to be a true C&C game, especially since the side-bar UI and con-yard system were replaced with more traditional systems very similar to Starcraft-esque games. Nevertheless, I had tons of fun with Generals and its plethora of user-made mods. Anyways, carry on with your SC2 vs BW discussion. Exactly, C&C fans didn't like SC in their game either, why should it be different from us? How successful was Generals? Cause it makes sense that they would copy from the best RTS out there, but it doesn't make sense that SC2 should take from RA2 rather than it's predecessor which was tried and proven. Don't see what your point is, some people don't like Generals to be like SC, some people don't like SC2 to feel like C&C. In any case, I can't help but point out the similarities in the two games I mentioned. Kind of sick of playing SC2 when my friends tell me to, only to have multiple Protoss blind Warp Gates after I scout them, barely hold it, and then have more stuff warp in just as we're killing the pylon - balance issues aside, that's not really fun to play against so often. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On May 02 2011 09:51 aimaimaim wrote: The community is the only one who knows what it want. The community should be the one doing the balancing, not Blizzard nor the clueless Browder. i agree. most competitive games have rules that are "community"-led. for example, the banning of Akuma in SSF2T, smash's rules that you have to study for a day, MLG's weird mods for Halo 3 etc. etc. i think BW is a special case in which all balancing was done through maps toward a favored gametype (1v1, natural expansions, choke points / ramps between the main and natural and the natural and the outside, etc.), with a few rules implemented by KeSPA (allied mines, for example). a balance patch should only be implemented if it makes the game more fun. if strategy A is so imbalanced and people are no longer playing, then it's a problem. if strategy A is so good but people are still playing and still winning against it, then it's not a problem. i would much rather see people trying new map types in SC2 instead of trying to jimmy in what worked in BW. even the ramps aren't the same size so it just seems awkward. | ||
|
Selith
United States238 Posts
On May 03 2011 07:16 kainzero wrote: i agree. most competitive games have rules that are "community"-led. for example, the banning of Akuma in SSF2T, smash's rules that you have to study for a day, MLG's weird mods for Halo 3 etc. etc. Truth to be said, if SC2 "community" were to be the ones doing the balancing for SC2, it'd probably be far more horrific than one can imagine. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On May 03 2011 08:15 Selith wrote: Truth to be said, if SC2 "community" were to be the ones doing the balancing for SC2, it'd probably be far more horrific than one can imagine. I wouldn't think so. If you mean those 'gosus' there at the SC2 Strategy forum, then Yes. But If the balancing act would be done by map-makers and be tested by the top players of the game, surely there will be good that would come out of it. That's the magic, I think, that exists in the past, and still in the present, and will still be for years to come on BW. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On May 03 2011 08:15 Selith wrote: Truth to be said, if SC2 "community" were to be the ones doing the balancing for SC2, it'd probably be far more horrific than one can imagine. what usually happens in these situations is: -a tournament, or many tournaments, are set up. -enforceable rules/settings are in effect -the tournament and rules are set up well enough so that people want to participate [whether it be for prestige (top players are playing, we want to be top players), money ($10k prize), etc.] -rules are popular and are implemented in more tournaments, and then it becomes "standard" what needs to happen for the change to be effective is that it needs to be dominant, otherwise you risk splitting and imploding the community OR nothing really happens. that's how allied mines and scv drills got banned. KeSPA didn't like them, forcing pro players to play without them. want to be a pro player, you can't play with them either, and it's the trickle down effect. that's also how KeSPA maps came about too. i think the same happened in tekken, korea plays with 120% life. --- let's say NASL changed all the variables, rebalanced the game, took out units and abilities and put in different ones. and the prize is still whatever prize it is. i bet people would play it just for the prize and if any of the settings were highly effective and exciting, other leagues would implement it too. and to be honest, i'd rather have something like that and have the sort of emergent gameplay balancing coming from the community (similar to how it sprouted from BW) instead of trusting Blizzard / Browder to do the work for us, seeing as how they've already shown through the release of SC2 that they have no idea what they were really doing. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
Like, if there was a map that was split into two large "islands" with 4-bases each (so not really an "island map"), that would change gameplay significantly, because players could be more greedy, and a 200/200 ground unit blob wouldn't be able to walk from one players base to the others. That would fix a lot of the problems people are complaining about. Would it lead to yet more problems? Obviously, but we'll never learn if we don't try. | ||
| ||
