EPTOSL begins on March 31st - Page 19
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
RamenStyle
United States1929 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45050 Posts
That's some serious shit right there. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
|
rslee
Canada226 Posts
On March 22 2012 19:37 Caihead wrote: They are flaws because they aren't intentional design decisions as well as being glitches / bugs that any programmer would facepalm at? Are units supposed to be able to pass through a solid building because a worker is mining minerals next to it? And I made it clear that improving on certain things in certain ways, while not personally preferable to some people, are exactly what gamers are going to ask for. No one is going to ask programmers to intentionally leave glitches and bugs that are completely illogical in games nowadays, BW gets away with it because it's become a part of the officially sanctioned meta game via map making and official rules, even then certain bugs DO limit the effectiveness of certain units (imagine if reavers didn't dud, imagine if terrans didn't have to watch their Valkyrie count because of projectile limit, there was even debate about rather muta stacking should be allowed, rather lifting buildings to crush interceptors is a legitimate strategy, etc). I'm not looking for people to change BW, far from it, I'm asking people to understand why people love the game, why I personally love the game, despite its flaws. I made my post specifically to explain that it's personal preference and to discourage people from hating on either game. And we should care because it's entirely possible to incorporate / create more imaginative combinations of unit control / positioning scenarios with new engines and technology that aren't even possible with in the BW engine, how much more amazing would new rts' be if there were officially sanctioned ways of controlling units that the programmers left in because they understand how illogical (by practical standards) concepts can be incorporated into a game that makes it more interesting to play / watch? Some obvious examples of ideas that they left in the game that you might not have even noticed from BW to SC2 are: you can control where the scv's position is while constructing a building by stopping construction and resuming it from a direction / with another scv. You can still avoid projectiles on ground units by lifting them in and out of dropships. Etc. An excellent example of SC2 coming up with its own methods of meta-gaming with new abilities which were not inherent design decisions would be the archon toilet where you intentionally let your archons enter a vortex so you can deal massive aoe damage while the units reappear. I enjoy reading your arguments and have nothing to add on either side but can you stop using rather for whether? Grammer Nazi sorry... | ||
|
Rococo
United States331 Posts
On March 22 2012 16:08 Caihead wrote: The debate between which game is better comes down to very simple terms: BW is extremely analog, and many of its inherent design flaws (pathing ai, scarab ai, control group, building grouping, lack of queued orders, etc) have become staple and audiences enjoy watching people perfect their control around these inherent flaws (let's not beat around the bush here, these are flaws, but they are flaws that have made the game much more interesting to watch due to the nature of the engine). Pro-gamers have developed so many techniques from these inherent flaws such as muta stacking (different movement speed units grouped together), avoiding scarab shots, pushing workers / units through minerals or pylon walls, landing units in between tank shots due to them firing simultaneously in range, etc; the progaming scene and the meta has evolved around these facts so much that official maps like outlier are specifically designed so workers / units can glitch through minerals. SC2 is extremely polished, alot of the inherent flaws of BW have been removed or entirely eliminated, the game is much faster and more fluid because of this; but as a result many people who love the analog nature and nuances of BW feel alienated. However I don't think it's a question that the SC2 engine is much more technically capable. Does simply underlining a word for emphasis make a claim self-evident? These things aren't flaws. Convinced yet? All games are about arbitrary restrictions, rules. And every rule in BW's rule set was put there quite deliberately by its designers, whether they foresaw all the possible consequences or not*. It wasn't fairies that gave the Reaver an attack that needs to path to its target, or that programmed the AI by which it does so. And it was a 100% conscious design choice to include Reavers in the game despite the unpredictability of scarabs, which they were well aware of. Would they have done something different with different tools and resources? Of course, but when has that ever mattered? (Jaws was not made worse because the mechanical sharks kept malfunctioning and Spielberg was forced to rely on classic cinematic techniques to create suspense.) The sole criterion by which you say a rule is flawed or not is how it shapes the gameplay experience, whether to be more challenging or less challenging, or more restrictive or less restrictive, or whatever it is the player is looking for. And this judgement, as you say, is very much a personal preference. You should have left it at that. *And of course they didn't, because no designer does. | ||
|
HyperionDreamer
Canada1528 Posts
On March 22 2012 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I wonder who will win the last StarLeague o.o That's some serious shit right there. Man, don't say that it's the last Starleague!!! =S We still want more BW! | ||
|
Jongl0
631 Posts
| ||
|
supernovamaniac
United States3047 Posts
But it seems like Park Wan Kyu is interested in donating money so that OSL can happen without a hassle. I don't know anything about how much he wants to donate or any other details except according to fomos, OGN staff has stated that this rumor is true. | ||
|
reincremate
China2216 Posts
On March 21 2012 16:48 Kanil wrote: Is this the thread where I have to make my outlandish predictions about Bisu before he has a chance to lose in the prelims? + Show Spoiler [Let's do this.] + Okay, so like... Bisu, man. Stomps through his prelims and into the ODT, crushes his group 2-0. Flattens his Ro16 3-0, kills Shine badly somewhere along the line (possibly in ODT and in the groups) before dropping Flash 2-0 in the Ro8. He then mauls Jaedong 3-0 in horribly lopsided games, before advancing to face Killer in the finals. Killer's had a yawn of a tournament, besting names like Soo, Hydra, and EffOrt - it's KvZ, so nobody's really surprised or expecting much. This is Bisu's OSL, right? The fans show up in droves, everyone's expecting it to happen. Killer is no Jaedong and he falls easily to a cannon rush in game 1. Bisu even has free time to build a heart out of pylons in the middle of the map. Onto game 2, and Bisu again shows his supreme prowess at everything ever. He gets so bored that he queues up some dark templars and leaves his booth to arrange an impromptu meeting with his fangirls. Every five minutes or so he briefly retreats back to his booth to queue up some more DTs. Game three and Killer still doesn't stand a chance. As Bisu orders his units into Killer's base to deliver the killing blow, he hits enter and types GG, and waits. He waits patiently, watching the zealots tear through Killer's defenses, waiting for that moment when he is to be crowned OSL champion. As Killer frantically goes to pull his last 3 drones to kill Bisu's 25 zealots, he notices his mouse isn't working. He types out "pp" and having learned his lesson, he waits for the refs to pause the game. Bisu, hearing the incoming chat noise and seeing the two little characters appear on screen, instantly slams his enter key and leaves the game. He bursts out of his booth triumphantly, as Killer sees "Congratulations! You are victorious!" on his screen. KeSPA rules that Bisu GG'd and left, so Killer was clearly the victory. Game four is on Blood Bath, and Killer 4pools. Bisu loses ezpz. Game five, Killer breaks out the dreaded hydra bust. Bisu cannot hold. An outpouring of rage erupts across the internet as Bisu fans express their displeasure and dismay. Team Liquid is instantly drowned in the shitstorm and goes down. Every attempt to restore the website is immediately swamped in an unceasing torrent of anger. Eventually attempts are given up, and Team Liquid shuts down. In fact, every website shuts down as Bisu fans rage across the entirety of the internet. Meanwhile in Seoul (and, let's face it, everywhere else!) there is rioting in the streets. An angry mob attempts to literally tear Killer apart, but Jaedong arrives just in time to death stare them all away and escort Killer back to the KeSPA house. The consequences of this new internetless age ripple through society, but fortunately there's still television, and BW does have lan support. Bisu will try again in the next OSL. One unfortunate casualty is that of Jaedong's career, for he now must be present at all official matches as a bodyguard to keep the fans in order. Still, with no internet people suddenly have a lot more free time on their hands to watch StarCraft, and this OSL is eventually heralded as a revitalization of professional Brood War. Killer's gonna win the OSL. I laughed so hard at this. Best OSL prediction ever. | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3714 Posts
| ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
On March 22 2012 23:46 supernovamaniac wrote: I can't translate anything since this article is from fomos. But it seems like Park Wan Kyu is interested in donating money so that OSL can happen without a hassle. I don't know anything about how much he wants to donate or any other details except according to fomos, OGN staff has stated that this rumor is true. Park Wan Gyu is boss. What can I say? He really loves Starcraft. | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50584 Posts
On March 23 2012 00:52 jpak wrote: Park Wan Gyu is boss. What can I say? He really loves Starcraft. wow seriously, what a guy. + Show Spoiler [work in progress] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Gqeb1.png) So hype. | ||
|
hmmm...
632 Posts
On March 22 2012 19:37 Caihead wrote: They are flaws because they aren't intentional design decisions as well as being glitches / bugs that any programmer would facepalm at? Are units supposed to be able to pass through a solid building because a worker is mining minerals next to it? And I made it clear that improving on certain things in certain ways, while not personally preferable to some people, are exactly what gamers are going to ask for. No one is going to ask programmers to intentionally leave glitches and bugs that are completely illogical in games nowadays, BW gets away with it because it's become a part of the officially sanctioned meta game via map making and official rules, even then certain bugs DO limit the effectiveness of certain units (imagine if reavers didn't dud, imagine if terrans didn't have to watch their Valkyrie count because of projectile limit, there was even debate about rather muta stacking should be allowed, rather lifting buildings to crush interceptors is a legitimate strategy, etc). I'm not looking for people to change BW, far from it, I'm asking people to understand why people love the game, why I personally love the game, despite its flaws. I made my post specifically to explain that it's personal preference and to discourage people from hating on either game. And we should care because it's entirely possible to incorporate / create more imaginative combinations of unit control / positioning scenarios with new engines and technology that aren't even possible with in the BW engine, how much more amazing would new rts' be if there were officially sanctioned ways of controlling units that the programmers left in because they understand how illogical (by practical standards) concepts can be incorporated into a game that makes it more interesting to play / watch? Some obvious examples of ideas that they left in the game that you might not have even noticed from BW to SC2 are: you can control where the scv's position is while constructing a building by stopping construction and resuming it from a direction / with another scv. You can still avoid projectiles on ground units by lifting them in and out of dropships. Etc. An excellent example of SC2 coming up with its own methods of meta-gaming with new abilities which were not inherent design decisions would be the archon toilet where you intentionally let your archons enter a vortex so you can deal massive aoe damage while the units reappear. oh god not one of these again.... btw, ur using the wrong context when defining "flawed". who cares whether dragoon ai is a lack of optimization in the program code. within the context of the game as an esports platform, hard dragoon ai is something that actually increases the skill-ceiling and hence improves the game from an esports viewpoint. are you really going to say that mutalisk stacking is flawed? LOL you do know that mutalisk stacking is pretty much what makes ZvT viable and makes it infinitely more interesting | ||
|
b0lt
United States790 Posts
On March 22 2012 19:37 Caihead wrote:An excellent example of SC2 coming up with its own methods of meta-gaming with new abilities which were not inherent design decisions would be the archon toilet where you intentionally let your archons enter a vortex so you can deal massive aoe damage while the units reappear. Right clicking a vortex with a bunch of archons: the apex of high level play | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On March 23 2012 02:59 hmmm... wrote: oh god not one of these again.... btw, ur using the wrong context when defining "flawed". who cares whether dragoon ai is a lack of optimization in the program code. within the context of the game as an esports platform, hard dragoon ai is something that actually increases the skill-ceiling and hence improves the game from an esports viewpoint. are you really going to say that mutalisk stacking is flawed? LOL you do know that mutalisk stacking is pretty much what makes ZvT viable and makes it infinitely more interesting Why has no one on this thread actually read my post from start to finish. I already said that: 1.Whether a game has programming flaws / how capable the engine is irrelevant to how the meta game develops, how complex the game becomes, or how your personal enjoyment of the game is. 2. BW is the best RTS despite inherent design flaws, glitches, and bugs and the meta game has evolved around inherent limitations of the engine. But gamers themselves are not going to ask for new games with glitches / bugs in them because their own evaluation of games is dependent on a bug free game. This reminds me of counter strike where abusing jump and crouch speeds up the player, and firing then immediately switching to another weapon if it's bolt action. I'm critiquing it on a programming term only, again, is it logical for units to pass through solid objects because a worker is mining minerals next to it? Is it logical for projectiles to be limited where valkyries don't even fire and become useless? SC2 is an RTS where many of the inherent limitations of the engine have been removed and many processes are automated, and that makes it less rewarding for some people. 3. Discussing individual player skill between BW and SC2 is meaningless. 4. Starting hate between the two games when both communities are in reality the same community that both wants to see esports grow is stupid. 5. I personally like BW because of its analog nature and the meta game that has developed around it which has been officially endorsed and sanctioned, and I'm asking other people to understand why people enjoy the game. But even then many of the bugs and glitches have been banned from professional play. What I'm saying is that there can be intention to make an RTS (with out changing BW, I'm not replacing BW, I'm not looking to ask people to play a different game than BW) where there is the intention of having more unique unit positioning / mechanics if we learn from what makes BW unique and memorable. And looking at the reactions I've gotten, most people think this means I'm criticizing BW, and every other comment is hating on SC2 for no apparent reason. It's just as stupid to hate on SC2 as a BW fan as it is to hate on BW as a SC2 fan. They can co-exist, and they have co-existed, and we need to deal with this community attitude of BW fans being elitists and SC2 fans being casuals when both parties are completely capable of critical thinking and analysis. | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On March 23 2012 04:00 b0lt wrote: Right clicking a vortex with a bunch of archons: the apex of high level play Christ, I'm not saying rather it's skillful, I'm saying that it's an inventive thing players came up with when they realized the mechanics of the game. Moving your army to bait the zerg into grouping up its army -> vortexing the army with archons -> zerg learning to split up his army is the same meta gaming process as stacking mutas -> irradiating stacked mutas -> knowing to split mutas to avoid irradiation damage. Can we stop inferring rather either game is "skillful" when I'm talking about mechanics and how these mechanics benefit the game even though in alot of cases they are inherent design flaws which could have been an official feature of a game if programmers begin to understand what makes BW so unique? | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On March 22 2012 21:47 Rococo wrote: Thrilled by this news. Does simply underlining a word for emphasis make a claim self-evident? These things aren't flaws. Convinced yet? All games are about arbitrary restrictions, rules. And every rule in BW's rule set was put there quite deliberately by its designers, whether they foresaw all the possible consequences or not*. It wasn't fairies that gave the Reaver an attack that needs to path to its target, or that programmed the AI by which it does so. And it was a 100% conscious design choice to include Reavers in the game despite the unpredictability of scarabs, which they were well aware of. Would they have done something different with different tools and resources? Of course, but when has that ever mattered? (Jaws was not made worse because the mechanical sharks kept malfunctioning and Spielberg was forced to rely on classic cinematic techniques to create suspense.) The sole criterion by which you say a rule is flawed or not is how it shapes the gameplay experience, whether to be more challenging or less challenging, or more restrictive or less restrictive, or whatever it is the player is looking for. And this judgement, as you say, is very much a personal preference. You should have left it at that. *And of course they didn't, because no designer does. It's deliberate to cap the projectile limit of the game so that valkyries are useless in great numbers where as every other unit isn't? The limitations do make BW cooler, but that's very much a personal evaluation. It's like modeling and rear screen projections in old movies being replaced by more technically capable special effects and computer generated graphics; where the limitations made it cooler. What I'm saying is exactly why people hate the majority of new movies that are completely reliant on special effects, that people learn to understand why people liked old things even though they are technically flawed because of the design and human ingenuity to get around these limitations and not allowing them to influence the game's entertainment value. New film makers along with new game developers often forget basics of making a movie / developing a game like understanding how the audience / player base reacts, basics of camera work / story telling / incorporating varied game mechanics and situations etc. There's no shame nor is it derogatory to say a certain system is flawed, I love modeling and precise camera work and practical special effects, but i'm not going to pretend that those things didn't limit film making. What I would love more is modeling, precise camera work, practical special effects, along with new computer technology all being incorporated; very few film makers understand / learn from past film making just as very few games developers learn from past mistakes. | ||
|
gds
Iceland1391 Posts
Once again SC2 trolls are posting shits in a BW thread with total impunity and BW fans are feeding them. | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On March 23 2012 04:19 gds wrote: Sad to see this holly thread turning into a BW vs SC2... Once again SC2 trolls are posting shits in a BW thread with total impunity and BW fans are feeding them. I'm terribly sorry for posting general rts discussion materials in this thread, but people have not ceased posting here after I PM'ed some of them. Feel free to ignore my comments as you see fit, I just felt that it was important that these comments be made. | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On March 23 2012 00:55 BLinD-RawR wrote: wow seriously, what a guy. + Show Spoiler [work in progress] + So hype. What a guy indeed. I wonder why OSL doesn't ask for community contributions. TAKE MY MONEY DAMMIT | ||
| ||
