|
On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
It's just weird that the mechanics argument is the one I keep hearing. The BW community always had its APM fetishists, and the D- guys with 300 APM I beat with my 60 because they don't know what they're doing, but the more you listen to the BW debates, the more it sounds like there's a subsection of the BW community who only like the game 'cause it's hard.
There are a lot of better reasons to like BW, and to like BW over SC2 (skirmishes all over the map being my big one), but I'm curious why the "it's harder" argument is the one I hear the most.
I think its because a lot of BW fans dont know how to explain themselves (or dont want to take the time) about what makes BW an epic game. so they go for a cheap argument.
On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
To flip the question on it's head: Let's have a hypothetical. Blizzard releases SC2, and it's almost exactly like BW. It's a stunningly faithful remake, more so than a sequel. Same units, same micro tricks, even the same bugs that get used in pro BW (pylon glitching through minerals etc), with just a new campaign. But they decide to make it more accessible to get in to, so they add MBS, Unlimited Unit Selection, and smart-cast, as well as some other things no one's objected to (not neeeding to open ports, auto-matchmaking, etc).
If THAT were the SC2 we were talking about, where everything was exactly the same but easier, would that be fine for you?
Yes, that would be great, but you cant say the game gonna be easier, thats wrong, the macro is gonna be easier and the micro skills will increase.
On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
In fact, to branch out, if you were told to design SC2, and to make it a distinct game, what -SPECIFICALLY - would you do to make a sequel distinctly different yet worthy of the name. And don't just say "micro and interesting units". I'm really legitimately curious what you or any other BW fan'd make. (I'd be fine with easymodo BW)
Well i would say to my boss that would be stupid decision. why would i make a "distinctly different" game than the greatest RTS of all time?. sure i will add mbs and automining im fine with that. but making it "distinctly different". no.
On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
Is overcoming difficulty not skill? The real FUN is elsewhere, though.
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
What makes BW epic is not balance , is not unit tricks, is not skirmish battles , is not 1or 2 things. is everything as a whole.
The only ones that can make a worthy BW sequel are the ones that understand this. that have studied heavily BW history.
thats why dustin browder is the wrong person for this job.
|
What makes BW epic and far superior than SC2 is the fact that Zerglings don't suck.
|
On May 14 2012 18:35 blubbdavid wrote:
What makes BW epic and far superior than SC2 is the fact that Zerglings don't suck.
the real difference is the attack sound. Those BW lings were pounding something serious.
|
On May 14 2012 18:31 insanet wrote:
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
What makes BW epic is not balance , is not unit tricks, is not skirmish battles , is not 1or 2 things. is everything as a whole.
The only ones that can make a worthy BW sequel are the ones that understand this. that have studied heavily BW history.
thats why dustin browder is the wrong person for this job.
I can't really argue this because I doubt I have the competitive experience to adaquately disagree, but it would be nice if some BW-fan or player took the time to quanitfy this statement. Obviously the SC2 fan base is not going to put the hours into a the game to develop this understanding, and Blizzard is likely to do the same. If there was one solidly made post that all BW-fans could simply like to if a BW vs. SC2 debate every broke out, it would make the whole thing a lot easier.
I have a lot of BW experience, so I can relate to quite a bit of the stuff being mentioned, but my lack of competitive expereince prevents me from being able to agree or disagree with this point.
Also, with all this SC2 balance threads, it would be nice if there was this well explained BW thread detailing its pros and cons whereby even the noobiest SC2 player could read and be able to at least formulate somewhat educated opinions on the two games.
If the write person wrote and contributed it, it could even create some interest or hype in the TL BW scene. As of now, most newcomers to SC2 are either introduced to BW during ill-informed flame wars, or posts such as the one I quoted (not to single out insanet personally) where they have no idea what they are talking about. To a degree, myself included.
|
On May 14 2012 19:07 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 18:35 blubbdavid wrote:
What makes BW epic and far superior than SC2 is the fact that Zerglings don't suck. the real difference is the attack sound. Those BW lings were pounding something serious.
Terran Battlecruisers didnt sound all that ferocious for a capital ship. Kind of like a deeper Wraith sound. I think the Sc2 bombardment style from a art perspective is more in line with a capital ship then the big ole pew
|
On May 14 2012 19:15 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 18:31 insanet wrote:
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
What makes BW epic is not balance , is not unit tricks, is not skirmish battles , is not 1or 2 things. is everything as a whole.
The only ones that can make a worthy BW sequel are the ones that understand this. that have studied heavily BW history.
thats why dustin browder is the wrong person for this job.
I can't really argue this because I doubt I have the competitive experience to adaquately disagree, but it would be nice if some BW-fan or player took the time to quanitfy this statement. Obviously the SC2 fan base is not going to put the hours into a the game to develop this understanding, and Blizzard is likely to do the same. If there was one solidly made post that all BW-fans could simply like to if a BW vs. SC2 debate every broke out, it would make the whole thing a lot easier. I have a lot of BW experience, so I can relate to quite a bit of the stuff being mentioned, but my lack of competitive expereince prevents me from being able to agree or disagree with this point. Also, with all this SC2 balance threads, it would be nice if there was this well explained BW thread detailing its pros and cons whereby even the noobiest SC2 player could read and be able to at least formulate somewhat educated opinions on the two games. If the write person wrote and contributed it, it could even create some interest or hype in the TL BW scene. As of now, most newcomers to SC2 are either introduced to BW during ill-informed flame wars, or posts such as the one I quoted (not to single out insanet personally) where they have no idea what they are talking about. To a degree, myself included.
Millions of post have been made, some very good ones in sc2 vs BW threads. Here is one from long ago that is very detailed with pictures(at least I think, it has been a while but it looks like the one I'm after):
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=121769
That is what people mean when they say sc2 units are boring.
On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
It's just weird that the mechanics argument is the one I keep hearing. The BW community always had its APM fetishists, and the D- guys with 300 APM I beat with my 60 because they don't know what they're doing, but the more you listen to the BW debates, the more it sounds like there's a subsection of the BW community who only like the game 'cause it's hard.
That is your assumption, have you even been reading what people wrote? Recently in this thread only Xiphos has said that difficulty was what made him prefer BW. Other people gone into detail about what certain difficulties bring to the game, this is complete different from just shitting on a game because it is easy.
On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
If THAT were the SC2 we were talking about, where everything was exactly the same but easier, would that be fine for you?
In fact, to branch out, if you were told to design SC2, and to make it a distinct game, what -SPECIFICALLY - would you do to make a sequel distinctly different yet worthy of the name. And don't just say "micro and interesting units". I'm really legitimately curious what you or any other BW fan'd make. (I'd be fine with easymodo BW)
Seriously? This has been discussed to death. Go read some post made by maybenexttime or some other posters who have names that are hard to spell...
He's not actively working on limiting it. He's just too ignorant to care. And the IT'S NOT BROOD WAR wall comes up as the defense against making the game more dynamic.
Agreed, what made BW fun was because the UI was just right for a competitive AND fun game.
On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
Is overcoming difficulty not skill? The real FUN is elsewhere, though.
I don't think that is what he meant. Real skill in BW isn't beating the AI. I also have fun fighting the UI because I think it is just right. A lot of games like angry birds is precisely that, fighting UI (except in this case it is trying to control the projectory of the bird using a slingshot, imagine drawing in the flight path, that is what I would call a shit game).
TL;DR it is all about balance, sc2 does not have that balance.
|
On May 14 2012 18:31 insanet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
It's just weird that the mechanics argument is the one I keep hearing. The BW community always had its APM fetishists, and the D- guys with 300 APM I beat with my 60 because they don't know what they're doing, but the more you listen to the BW debates, the more it sounds like there's a subsection of the BW community who only like the game 'cause it's hard.
There are a lot of better reasons to like BW, and to like BW over SC2 (skirmishes all over the map being my big one), but I'm curious why the "it's harder" argument is the one I hear the most.
I think its because a lot of BW fans dont know how to explain themselves (or dont want to take the time) about what makes BW an epic game. so they go for a cheap argument.
Might be it. BW really has a hard time selling itself, I've noticed. The game it's adherents describe nowadays isn't the game I played 600 games of on ICCUP.
Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
To flip the question on it's head: Let's have a hypothetical. Blizzard releases SC2, and it's almost exactly like BW. It's a stunningly faithful remake, more so than a sequel. Same units, same micro tricks, even the same bugs that get used in pro BW (pylon glitching through minerals etc), with just a new campaign. But they decide to make it more accessible to get in to, so they add MBS, Unlimited Unit Selection, and smart-cast, as well as some other things no one's objected to (not neeeding to open ports, auto-matchmaking, etc).
If THAT were the SC2 we were talking about, where everything was exactly the same but easier, would that be fine for you?
Yes, that would be great, but you cant say the game gonna be easier, thats wrong, the macro is gonna be easier and the micro skills will increase.
There be less stuff to do means it'll be easier, by definition. I think there's a limit to how much APM you can throw into an engagement before it stops helping. I know Protoss "only" need 250ish APM compared to the other races, which is why Stork can get away with playing WoW. Cutting some out with MBS and UUS? I have 60 APM in BW and 90 in SC2, so 200 is a lot for me, enough to be impressive. I think I've hit 130 at my peak in a game of SC2 where I got in the zone. So 200 APM is way better than I can But is it good enough to have that "wow" factor that drives so many fans on this board?
Bigger question: Does it matter? Are the APM fanatics a large percent of BW fans, or just a large percent of people who don't like SC2? Even at the time I was super into BW, I never thought about APM (much to my detriment; I played like 100 games on a trackpad before finally getting a mouse)
Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
In fact, to branch out, if you were told to design SC2, and to make it a distinct game, what -SPECIFICALLY - would you do to make a sequel distinctly different yet worthy of the name. And don't just say "micro and interesting units". I'm really legitimately curious what you or any other BW fan'd make. (I'd be fine with easymodo BW)
Well i would say to my boss that would be stupid decision. why would i make a "distinctly different" game than the greatest RTS of all time?. sure i will add mbs and automining im fine with that. but making it "distinctly different". no.
You don't see a way to improve BW, at all? It's the perfect game? (this isn't a leading question or anything, I'm just curious)
On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
Is overcoming difficulty not skill? The real FUN is elsewhere, though.
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
What makes BW epic is not balance , is not unit tricks, is not skirmish battles , is not 1or 2 things. is everything as a whole.
The only ones that can make a worthy BW sequel are the ones that understand this. that have studied heavily BW history.
thats why dustin browder is the wrong person for this job.[/QUOTE]
But you just said a worthy BW sequel can't exist
|
On May 14 2012 19:33 Ribbon wrote:
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
Now you're just putting words into his mouth. It is clear from the context that this is far from his point.
|
On May 14 2012 19:15 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 18:31 insanet wrote:
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
What makes BW epic is not balance , is not unit tricks, is not skirmish battles , is not 1or 2 things. is everything as a whole.
The only ones that can make a worthy BW sequel are the ones that understand this. that have studied heavily BW history.
thats why dustin browder is the wrong person for this job.
I can't really argue this because I doubt I have the competitive experience to adaquately disagree, but it would be nice if some BW-fan or player took the time to quanitfy this statement. Obviously the SC2 fan base is not going to put the hours into a the game to develop this understanding, and Blizzard is likely to do the same. If there was one solidly made post that all BW-fans could simply like to if a BW vs. SC2 debate every broke out, it would make the whole thing a lot easier. I have a lot of BW experience, so I can relate to quite a bit of the stuff being mentioned, but my lack of competitive expereince prevents me from being able to agree or disagree with this point. Also, with all this SC2 balance threads, it would be nice if there was this well explained BW thread detailing its pros and cons whereby even the noobiest SC2 player could read and be able to at least formulate somewhat educated opinions on the two games. If the write person wrote and contributed it, it could even create some interest or hype in the TL BW scene. As of now, most newcomers to SC2 are either introduced to BW during ill-informed flame wars, or posts such as the one I quoted (not to single out insanet personally) where they have no idea what they are talking about. To a degree, myself included.
The argument is pretty simple. Let's be honest: SC2 didn't introduce very many new things to the RTS genre.
Take every abstract RTS concept in aggregate that BW captured superlatively. Micro, Macro, Multitasking, Strategy and Tactics, Positional Play, Defender's Advantage, Diverse Unit Interactions, and so on. Now simplify a few things. Then dilute, marginalize, or remove altogether a few more things. What are you left with, exactly? A subset of the whole. SC2 has fewer types of micro, fewer micro-intense unit interactions, simplified macro, less positional play, almost non-existent defender's advantage. Marine/baneling is the crown jewel of SC2 micro, and BW has multiple such unit interactions in each match-up. Marine/lurker, marine/muta, vessel/scourge, muta/irradiate, wraith/muta, and on and on, just for TvZ.
As often as we hear it, SC2 isn't completely new and different. It's very much in the same vein as BW. It doesn't give you new things to focus on. It simply removed a few things that you could focus on, and you have to try to maximize what's left. We've heard many times in response to, "Where's all the long and intense battle micro?" -- "Now it's all pre-battle unit positioning!" as if that weren't a skill that existed before. It's like saying, "There's just as much macro in Warcraft 3 as in Starcraft--expanding, making workers, constructing buildings, training units, it's all there!" Well sure, maybe, but it's certainly a lot shallower in focus, execution, and importance. There are just gaps.
Lastly, even if everything I said were true, it's not necessarily a bad thing. What if SC2 were only half as good as BW? That would still make it an excellent, highly competitive RTS game. What if SC2 were just a "light" version of BW? That's fine: SC2 as a simplified, streamlined vehicle for those RTS concepts makes them available to the masses to enjoy without the perceived headaches of dealing with BW's quirks. That's enough for most people.
However, that doesn't mean it doesn't feel like a distinct downgrade going from BW for many who have followed both. Coupled with quite a few other cons of SC2 as a product itself, and it's not too difficult to see why some people would be underwhelmed and disappointed.
|
On May 14 2012 19:45 Bwenjarin Raffrack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 19:15 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:On May 14 2012 18:31 insanet wrote:
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
What makes BW epic is not balance , is not unit tricks, is not skirmish battles , is not 1or 2 things. is everything as a whole.
The only ones that can make a worthy BW sequel are the ones that understand this. that have studied heavily BW history.
thats why dustin browder is the wrong person for this job.
I can't really argue this because I doubt I have the competitive experience to adaquately disagree, but it would be nice if some BW-fan or player took the time to quanitfy this statement. Obviously the SC2 fan base is not going to put the hours into a the game to develop this understanding, and Blizzard is likely to do the same. If there was one solidly made post that all BW-fans could simply like to if a BW vs. SC2 debate every broke out, it would make the whole thing a lot easier. I have a lot of BW experience, so I can relate to quite a bit of the stuff being mentioned, but my lack of competitive expereince prevents me from being able to agree or disagree with this point. Also, with all this SC2 balance threads, it would be nice if there was this well explained BW thread detailing its pros and cons whereby even the noobiest SC2 player could read and be able to at least formulate somewhat educated opinions on the two games. If the write person wrote and contributed it, it could even create some interest or hype in the TL BW scene. As of now, most newcomers to SC2 are either introduced to BW during ill-informed flame wars, or posts such as the one I quoted (not to single out insanet personally) where they have no idea what they are talking about. To a degree, myself included. The argument is pretty simple. Let's be honest: SC2 didn't introduce very many new things to the RTS genre. Take every abstract RTS concept in aggregate that BW captured superlatively. Micro, Macro, Multitasking, Strategy and Tactics, Positional Play, Defender's Advantage, Diverse Unit Interactions, and so on. Now simplify a few things. Then dilute, marginalize, or remove altogether a few more things. What are you left with, exactly? A subset of the whole. SC2 has fewer types of micro, fewer micro-intense unit interactions, simplified macro, less positional play, almost non-existent defender's advantage. Marine/baneling is the crown jewel of SC2 micro, and BW has multiple such unit interactions in each match-up. Marine/lurker, marine/muta, vessel/scourge, muta/irradiate, wraith/muta, and on and on, just for TvZ. As often as we hear it, SC2 isn't completely new and different. It's very much in the same vein as BW. It doesn't give you new things to focus on. It simply removed a few things that you could focus on, and you have to try to maximize what's left. We've heard many times in response to, "Where's all the long and intense battle micro?" -- "Now it's all pre-battle unit positioning!" as if that weren't a skill that existed before. It's like saying, "There's just as much macro in Warcraft 3 as in Starcraft--expanding, making workers, constructing buildings, training units, it's all there!" Well sure, maybe, but it's certainly a lot shallower in focus, execution, and importance. There are just gaps. Lastly, even if everything I said were true, it's not necessarily a bad thing. What if SC2 were only half as good as BW? That would still make it an excellent, highly competitive RTS game. What if SC2 were just a "light" version of BW? That's fine: SC2 as a simplified, streamlined vehicle for those RTS concepts makes them available to the masses to enjoy without the perceived headaches of dealing with BW's quirks. That's enough for most people. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't feel like a distinct downgrade going from BW for many who have followed both. Coupled with quite a few other cons of SC2 as a product itself, and it's not too difficult to see why some people would be underwhelmed and disappointed.
In 2010 you cannot put a game out without Auto mine, without MBS, better unit control, shiny graphics and most important of all, you cannot copy a game and resell it for money. Dota2 is gonna be free with microtransations. Sc2 cannot pull microtransations, simply becouse it has no place in a game like Sc2. They had to change the game, there was no other way around.
Dont mistaken me, i dont say it is good, just with the current generation out there, whos used to have tips popping up left and right on their screen. Most of the kids nowdays expect a game to easy to learn. And from a causal point of view, Sc2 is really good. Lot easier to get into than BW. Lets be honest with ourselves. If Blizzard remake BW, everything the same, new units in campign appears, maybe few soundtrack / unit sound changes, new graphics. How many would have bought it for a full price? How do you expect Blizz to make money out of it.
|
On May 14 2012 20:09 Darksoldierr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 19:45 Bwenjarin Raffrack wrote:On May 14 2012 19:15 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:On May 14 2012 18:31 insanet wrote:
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
What makes BW epic is not balance , is not unit tricks, is not skirmish battles , is not 1or 2 things. is everything as a whole.
The only ones that can make a worthy BW sequel are the ones that understand this. that have studied heavily BW history.
thats why dustin browder is the wrong person for this job.
I can't really argue this because I doubt I have the competitive experience to adaquately disagree, but it would be nice if some BW-fan or player took the time to quanitfy this statement. Obviously the SC2 fan base is not going to put the hours into a the game to develop this understanding, and Blizzard is likely to do the same. If there was one solidly made post that all BW-fans could simply like to if a BW vs. SC2 debate every broke out, it would make the whole thing a lot easier. I have a lot of BW experience, so I can relate to quite a bit of the stuff being mentioned, but my lack of competitive expereince prevents me from being able to agree or disagree with this point. Also, with all this SC2 balance threads, it would be nice if there was this well explained BW thread detailing its pros and cons whereby even the noobiest SC2 player could read and be able to at least formulate somewhat educated opinions on the two games. If the write person wrote and contributed it, it could even create some interest or hype in the TL BW scene. As of now, most newcomers to SC2 are either introduced to BW during ill-informed flame wars, or posts such as the one I quoted (not to single out insanet personally) where they have no idea what they are talking about. To a degree, myself included. The argument is pretty simple. Let's be honest: SC2 didn't introduce very many new things to the RTS genre. Take every abstract RTS concept in aggregate that BW captured superlatively. Micro, Macro, Multitasking, Strategy and Tactics, Positional Play, Defender's Advantage, Diverse Unit Interactions, and so on. Now simplify a few things. Then dilute, marginalize, or remove altogether a few more things. What are you left with, exactly? A subset of the whole. SC2 has fewer types of micro, fewer micro-intense unit interactions, simplified macro, less positional play, almost non-existent defender's advantage. Marine/baneling is the crown jewel of SC2 micro, and BW has multiple such unit interactions in each match-up. Marine/lurker, marine/muta, vessel/scourge, muta/irradiate, wraith/muta, and on and on, just for TvZ. As often as we hear it, SC2 isn't completely new and different. It's very much in the same vein as BW. It doesn't give you new things to focus on. It simply removed a few things that you could focus on, and you have to try to maximize what's left. We've heard many times in response to, "Where's all the long and intense battle micro?" -- "Now it's all pre-battle unit positioning!" as if that weren't a skill that existed before. It's like saying, "There's just as much macro in Warcraft 3 as in Starcraft--expanding, making workers, constructing buildings, training units, it's all there!" Well sure, maybe, but it's certainly a lot shallower in focus, execution, and importance. There are just gaps. Lastly, even if everything I said were true, it's not necessarily a bad thing. What if SC2 were only half as good as BW? That would still make it an excellent, highly competitive RTS game. What if SC2 were just a "light" version of BW? That's fine: SC2 as a simplified, streamlined vehicle for those RTS concepts makes them available to the masses to enjoy without the perceived headaches of dealing with BW's quirks. That's enough for most people. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't feel like a distinct downgrade going from BW for many who have followed both. Coupled with quite a few other cons of SC2 as a product itself, and it's not too difficult to see why some people would be underwhelmed and disappointed. In 2010 you cannot put a game out without Auto mine, without MBS, better unit control, shiny graphics and most important of all, you cannot copy a game and resell it for money. Dota2 is gonna be free with microtransations. Sc2 cannot pull microtransations, simply becouse it has no place in a game like Sc2. They had to change the game, there was no other way around.
You completely misunderstood his post, which happens to be exactly my stance on this issue.
SC2 players, when SC3 comes out, do not do like us, do like the the people who complained about sc alpha stage being warcraft in space.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xRobe.jpg)
I hope, when the merge-ing of scenes is done, that they will implement some exciting moments in SCII. Because I love everything about that game (scene, players, casters, money, good foreigners) except for the actual game play TT
|
On May 14 2012 20:18 Skeggaba wrote:I hope, when the merge-ing of scenes is done, that they will implement some exciting moments in SCII. Because I love everything about that game (scene, players, casters, money, good foreigners) except for the actual game play TT
That image is just a litttttttle disingenuous....
|
On May 14 2012 19:18 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 19:15 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:On May 14 2012 18:31 insanet wrote:
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
What makes BW epic is not balance , is not unit tricks, is not skirmish battles , is not 1or 2 things. is everything as a whole.
The only ones that can make a worthy BW sequel are the ones that understand this. that have studied heavily BW history.
thats why dustin browder is the wrong person for this job.
I can't really argue this because I doubt I have the competitive experience to adaquately disagree, but it would be nice if some BW-fan or player took the time to quanitfy this statement. Obviously the SC2 fan base is not going to put the hours into a the game to develop this understanding, and Blizzard is likely to do the same. If there was one solidly made post that all BW-fans could simply like to if a BW vs. SC2 debate every broke out, it would make the whole thing a lot easier. I have a lot of BW experience, so I can relate to quite a bit of the stuff being mentioned, but my lack of competitive expereince prevents me from being able to agree or disagree with this point. Also, with all this SC2 balance threads, it would be nice if there was this well explained BW thread detailing its pros and cons whereby even the noobiest SC2 player could read and be able to at least formulate somewhat educated opinions on the two games. If the write person wrote and contributed it, it could even create some interest or hype in the TL BW scene. As of now, most newcomers to SC2 are either introduced to BW during ill-informed flame wars, or posts such as the one I quoted (not to single out insanet personally) where they have no idea what they are talking about. To a degree, myself included. Millions of post have been made, some very good ones in sc2 vs BW threads. Here is one from long ago that is very detailed with pictures(at least I think, it has been a while but it looks like the one I'm after): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=121769That is what people mean when they say sc2 units are boring.
That post is a little outdated (Phoenixes can fire while moving in the released game, without slowing down at all. It's thus possible to beat mutas cost-efficiently with them), but I think it makes its point well, especially in regard to vikings, which never get microed beyond splitting them up if there's a raven.
SC2's best micro is marine vs baneling, and speedling/baneling vs speedling/baneling. In both cases, the micro isn't actually all that complicated, it's just way faster than BW for marine splitting, and ludicrously fast in sling/bling (which is why most SC2 fans don't like it, despite it being the most micro intensive engagement in the game. It's the only battle I devote much attention to microing in either SC2 or BW, because I'm bad at BW).
SC2 is kind of half a good game, and half a mediocre one, and I think that's the reason I have such mixed feelings towards it a lot. I keep seeing potential, but then I keep seeing Collosi. I'm fairly confident that HotS will be a better game than WoL in nearly all respects, and the LotV will be a better game that HotS, but BW in all likelihood will remain better than all of them forever. If SC2 had skirmishes all over the map the way BW does, I'd be pretty happy with it. But it doesn't, and I keep seeing flashes that it could.....but it doesn't. Even in famous games like Thorzain vs MC on Tal'Darim for TSL 3. There were small engagements, and they were at various points on the map, but it wasn't quite right.
A lot of people either say SC2 is fine, or that it's fundamentally a failure. My feeling is more that it's missing something, and it's not something I can explain very well. I guess that's why I'm hanging out in these threads, even though I have no intention of converting anyone: I'm waiting for someone to put into words what I feel. I was watching Lime vs Kolll in the ISL (also: Watch the ISL), and there was something about all those tank lines that aroused feels I never got from SC2, and wish I did.
I think what we need is someone with a high understanding of both games. I generally see BW fans making thin arguments about SC2, SC2 fans making stupid arguments about BW, or LaLuSh, who's the only person that's actually made me think about it and go "Hmmm"
Agreed, what made BW fun was because the UI was just right for a competitive AND fun game.
I never found that UI all that fun, honestly. That never did it for me. Managing attacks in three places while expanding is fun. Stutter-stepping a dragoon against a zealot and getting praised by my opponent for "good micro" (D- ftw) is fun. Plinking at a depot with a Dragoon because Bisu does it and that makes me like Bisu who cares if I'm floating 2k minterals at the five minute mark is fun. Getting 2 dragoons down a ramp often isn't.
Maybe it's because I was more of a casual BW fan, for as much as I played it. I never really wanted to be the best, like no one ever was. I just wanted to kind of find myself in C- after a while, and I was in no hurry (still trying! Waiting for everyone else to leave ICCUP, and then that C- shall be mine)
Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 17:53 Ribbon wrote:
Is overcoming difficulty not skill? The real FUN is elsewhere, though. I don't think that is what he meant. Real skill in BW isn't beating the AI. I also have fun fighting the UI because I think it is just right. A lot of games like angry birds is precisely that, fighting UI (except in this case it is trying to control the projectory of the bird using a slingshot, imagine drawing in the flight path, that is what I would call a shit game). TL;DR it is all about balance, sc2 does not have that balance.
The angry birds comparison is an interesting one. I think the difference is that it is (I presume, I haven't played it), an intuitive system. BW often isn't. You can have a depot next to a barracks, and MAYBE it walls, depending on completely arbitrary factors you have to study. That's literally the reason I don't play Terran: I can't for the life of me figure out walling. Sim City in general is one of my big weaknesses; I can never place my gateways optimally, even though I know the rules. (I always end up with pylons in stupid places ruining everything). BW is a game you really have to study to be good at. And I certainly do get the appeal of that, but I wish it were easier to suss things out yourself, and not just have to know to group and overlord with your mutas.
|
On May 14 2012 19:45 Bwenjarin Raffrack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 19:15 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:On May 14 2012 18:31 insanet wrote:
yes overcoming difficulty is skill.
What makes BW epic is not balance , is not unit tricks, is not skirmish battles , is not 1or 2 things. is everything as a whole.
The only ones that can make a worthy BW sequel are the ones that understand this. that have studied heavily BW history.
thats why dustin browder is the wrong person for this job.
I can't really argue this because I doubt I have the competitive experience to adaquately disagree, but it would be nice if some BW-fan or player took the time to quanitfy this statement. Obviously the SC2 fan base is not going to put the hours into a the game to develop this understanding, and Blizzard is likely to do the same. If there was one solidly made post that all BW-fans could simply like to if a BW vs. SC2 debate every broke out, it would make the whole thing a lot easier. I have a lot of BW experience, so I can relate to quite a bit of the stuff being mentioned, but my lack of competitive expereince prevents me from being able to agree or disagree with this point. Also, with all this SC2 balance threads, it would be nice if there was this well explained BW thread detailing its pros and cons whereby even the noobiest SC2 player could read and be able to at least formulate somewhat educated opinions on the two games. If the write person wrote and contributed it, it could even create some interest or hype in the TL BW scene. As of now, most newcomers to SC2 are either introduced to BW during ill-informed flame wars, or posts such as the one I quoted (not to single out insanet personally) where they have no idea what they are talking about. To a degree, myself included. The argument is pretty simple. Let's be honest: SC2 didn't introduce very many new things to the RTS genre. ... + Show Spoiler +Take every abstract RTS concept in aggregate that BW captured superlatively. Micro, Macro, Multitasking, Strategy and Tactics, Positional Play, Defender's Advantage, Diverse Unit Interactions, and so on. Now simplify a few things. Then dilute, marginalize, or remove altogether a few more things. What are you left with, exactly? A subset of the whole. SC2 has fewer types of micro, fewer micro-intense unit interactions, simplified macro, less positional play, almost non-existent defender's advantage. Marine/baneling is the crown jewel of SC2 micro, and BW has multiple such unit interactions in each match-up. Marine/lurker, marine/muta, vessel/scourge, muta/irradiate, wraith/muta, and on and on, just for TvZ.
As often as we hear it, SC2 isn't completely new and different. It's very much in the same vein as BW. It doesn't give you new things to focus on. It simply removed a few things that you could focus on, and you have to try to maximize what's left. We've heard many times in response to, "Where's all the long and intense battle micro?" -- "Now it's all pre-battle unit positioning!" as if that weren't a skill that existed before. It's like saying, "There's just as much macro in Warcraft 3 as in Starcraft--expanding, making workers, constructing buildings, training units, it's all there!" Well sure, maybe, but it's certainly a lot shallower in focus, execution, and importance. There are just gaps.
Lastly, even if everything I said were true, it's not necessarily a bad thing. What if SC2 were only half as good as BW? That would still make it an excellent, highly competitive RTS game. What if SC2 were just a "light" version of BW? That's fine: SC2 as a simplified, streamlined vehicle for those RTS concepts makes them available to the masses to enjoy without the perceived headaches of dealing with BW's quirks. That's enough for most people.
However, that doesn't mean it doesn't feel like a distinct downgrade going from BW for many who have followed both. Coupled with quite a few other cons of SC2 as a product itself, and it's not too difficult to see why some people would be underwhelmed and disappointed.
This is a great post covering the back bone of RTS and the root problem of modern RTS designs. And I am one of the vastly underwhelmed and disppointed bunch.
On May 14 2012 20:28 Ribbon wrote:
The angry birds comparison is an interesting one. I think the difference is that it is (I presume, I haven't played it), an intuitive system. BW often isn't. You can have a depot next to a barracks, and MAYBE it walls, depending on completely arbitrary factors you have to study. That's literally the reason I don't play Terran: I can't for the life of me figure out walling. Sim City in general is one of my big weaknesses; I can never place my gateways optimally, even though I know the rules. (I always end up with pylons in stupid places ruining everything). BW is a game you really have to study to be good at. And I certainly do get the appeal of that, but I wish it were easier to suss things out yourself, and not just have to know to group and overlord with your mutas.
Walling is not that arbitrary... just study some tables in:
List of Unit and Building Sizes
To be competitive in any game/sport, you have to study most if not all related materials. For example, to be really good at Diablo 2, one has to know the breakpoint tables.
|
On May 14 2012 20:28 Ribbon wrote:
The angry birds comparison is an interesting one. I think the difference is that it is (I presume, I haven't played it), an intuitive system. BW often isn't. You can have a depot next to a barracks, and MAYBE it walls, depending on completely arbitrary factors you have to study. That's literally the reason I don't play Terran: I can't for the life of me figure out walling. Sim City in general is one of my big weaknesses; I can never place my gateways optimally, even though I know the rules. (I always end up with pylons in stupid places ruining everything). BW is a game you really have to study to be good at. And I certainly do get the appeal of that, but I wish it were easier to suss things out yourself, and not just have to know to group and overlord with your mutas.
I had a friend taught me so was much funner for me. I guess if your uber competitive it sucks to have to learn so much. You're not going to be executing pro builds anyway. I remember being a D rank going 14cc every game... Just focus on having fun and gradually climbing the ladder with strong fundamentals I guess. People on Iccup are also pretty nice, my opponents would normally tell me what I did wrong before the end of the game. Theres also the Iccup trainning channel but I'm not sure if that is still alive.
|
On May 14 2012 22:03 HighTemper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 20:28 Ribbon wrote:
The angry birds comparison is an interesting one. I think the difference is that it is (I presume, I haven't played it), an intuitive system. BW often isn't. You can have a depot next to a barracks, and MAYBE it walls, depending on completely arbitrary factors you have to study. That's literally the reason I don't play Terran: I can't for the life of me figure out walling. Sim City in general is one of my big weaknesses; I can never place my gateways optimally, even though I know the rules. (I always end up with pylons in stupid places ruining everything). BW is a game you really have to study to be good at. And I certainly do get the appeal of that, but I wish it were easier to suss things out yourself, and not just have to know to group and overlord with your mutas.
Walling is not that arbitrary... just study some tables in: List of Unit and Building SizesTo be competitive in any game/sport, you have to study most if not all related materials. For example, to be really good at Diablo 2, one has to know the breakpoint tables.
Well no, it's not ACTUALLY arbitrary. I understand that there are rules. The reason walling in particular bugs me is that it's mandatory knowledge. It's not something I have to learn to get from C to C+, it's something I have to learn to start playing vs Zerg at all, assuming I don't want to just die. BW has a very large initial investment, especially nowadays where you have to know to shut down explorer.exe and have admin access to your router (I don't, and that's the #1 reason I rarely play BW nowadays; I literally can't).
I wish I could play BW out of SC2's bnet. I will take unused screen space and empty channels for being able to play a goddamn game in less than 20 minutes 
Every time I'm in ICCUP, there's at least one guy with a game open it's literally impossible for people to join. How many potential BW fans gave up just at that point, when no one would play with them?
|
Our beloved LRM)Game still does not know how to wall you know.
I don't particularly enjoy learning wallin (and I'm zerg so it's cool), but it's not that hard and when I hear Sayle talking about Horang2's bases, it seems that some people do find the building placement system fun.
Plus I don't understand why you dislike the idea of mandatory knowledge...
|
On May 14 2012 20:22 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 20:18 Skeggaba wrote:I hope, when the merge-ing of scenes is done, that they will implement some exciting moments in SCII. Because I love everything about that game (scene, players, casters, money, good foreigners) except for the actual game play TT That image is just a litttttttle disingenuous....
The truth is not pretty.
|
On May 14 2012 22:15 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2012 22:03 HighTemper wrote:On May 14 2012 20:28 Ribbon wrote:
The angry birds comparison is an interesting one. I think the difference is that it is (I presume, I haven't played it), an intuitive system. BW often isn't. You can have a depot next to a barracks, and MAYBE it walls, depending on completely arbitrary factors you have to study. That's literally the reason I don't play Terran: I can't for the life of me figure out walling. Sim City in general is one of my big weaknesses; I can never place my gateways optimally, even though I know the rules. (I always end up with pylons in stupid places ruining everything). BW is a game you really have to study to be good at. And I certainly do get the appeal of that, but I wish it were easier to suss things out yourself, and not just have to know to group and overlord with your mutas.
Walling is not that arbitrary... just study some tables in: List of Unit and Building SizesTo be competitive in any game/sport, you have to study most if not all related materials. For example, to be really good at Diablo 2, one has to know the breakpoint tables. Well no, it's not ACTUALLY arbitrary. I understand that there are rules. The reason walling in particular bugs me is that it's mandatory knowledge. It's not something I have to learn to get from C to C+, it's something I have to learn to start playing vs Zerg at all, assuming I don't want to just die. BW has a very large initial investment, especially nowadays where you have to know to shut down explorer.exe and have admin access to your router (I don't, and that's the #1 reason I rarely play BW nowadays; I literally can't). I wish I could play BW out of SC2's bnet. I will take unused screen space and empty channels for being able to play a goddamn game in less than 20 minutes Every time I'm in ICCUP, there's at least one guy with a game open it's literally impossible for people to join. How many potential BW fans gave up just at that point, when no one would play with them?
You don't have to learn walling at all really, but D on iCCup is a very high starting point. If we're talking from a game design standpoint, there are gonna be a tonne of things you need to figure out, but only when you start playing really competitively. Most people learned the game through UMS maps, or bnet pubbies with people as new as themselves.
You're absolutely right, it would have been really nice if Blizzard had let BW on their new bnet. One of the biggest problems is that most people don't want to go to the trouble of forwarding their ports. If you do though, finding a game is pretty easy on iccup.
On May 14 2012 22:19 corumjhaelen wrote:
Our beloved LRM)Game still does not know how to wall you know.
I don't particularly enjoy learning wallin (and I'm zerg so it's cool), but it's not that hard and when I hear Sayle talking about Horang2's bases, it seems that some people do find the building placement system fun.
Plus I don't understand why you dislike the idea of mandatory knowledge...
Horang2's bases are like 8 gates powered by 3 pylons in the simplest way possible. 3 pylong ontop of each other, 4 gates on either side in a square. Really easy to replicate as long as you position your pylons to give you enough room.
And yeah, one of the really fun things about BW is building positioning to get subtle advantages. I don't see it as any less of a legitimate skill you learn than getting the hotkeys down and using control groups and fkeys, or knowing what units are good against what, or what type of damage they do. Stuff you can learn through direct study or just watching VODs and absorbing it.
But learning to wall in? That is a player saying 'forge under gateway, supply depot over barracks' to you once and then you've learned it forever. The variations like supply depot to left or right of barracks good enough for a marine but zealot tight, are things you learn from watching a pro once and add depth to the game in just what exactly you can do with everything. I always thought it was cool to discover new things in StarCraft, not something to be regretted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
