|
Here's what I get from this article.
Starcraft is going to die. The community is going to split.
The Brood war fanboys will consistently criticize the SC2 fanboys, while the SC2 fanboys do not want hostility and will urge that they are totally separate games and there is no need to compare them. The Brood war fanboys will bash every thing as little as a discussion about SC2.
Sound familiar? Counter-strike. I've seen it happen with my very eyes. The communities are so separated that both games just end up dying.
We could do without the sarcastic pictures about "Brood war is to checkers, fast paced, while SC2 is to chess, slow and boring." Or a dog playing the games. It doesn't bolster your point in any way, unless you were going for a bitter, sarcastic humor.
And the generalizations about one group is just unaccurate. No matter what group you're looking at, you'll still have dozens of people from both communities asking: How is this different than Brood war? 60$ for practically the same game? Blizzard are greedy businessmen who only want to extract money from us.
If SC2 will be what it is, we need to start embracing it. Get people ready for the change. Not distance and divide people from both games.
|
On November 03 2008 07:16 khersai wrote:
I'd like to see those extra actions spent on better unit positioning / flanking etc., not like throw my army into the battle -> leave it be for a couple of secs -> go back to base to macro
it's fine
telling computer smth like "constantly produce zealots/immortals in 3:2 ratio" would be too much
I don't like autosplit thou
Yeah, macroing takes a lot of time, so you cant micro at all.
http://se.youtube.com/watch?v=lxEMDinnsxo
|
United States3824 Posts
Well spoken Into The Wow.
It's nice to see something well articulated sometimes, it just nails down how we all feel.
Though I think we will all still pwn noobs at SC2, no doubt about it. 
|
The Flashy one in just closed thread:
i had this to add though..
They are many threads about MBS but none that is tackling the particular issue that i'm discussing above....Anyways, so that means you think we are doomed? i don't think that Blizzard truthfully wants to ignore the segment of competitive gamers. They are aware of the form that SC1 has taken in korea has a esport so i'm pretty sure that they want to continue in that direction with SC2. But ....goddamn, they have to know that they'll destroy, or significantly injure competitive SC2 with automation. Whereas if they remove it, or a sizable part of it, they'll be able to keep both casuals and hardcore gamers because like it's been said many times, casuals don't care about MBS or not, and still enjoy manual games. That's why my whole point revolves around the need for better communication between gamers and Blizzard because i think time is running up.
I know its great for TL to make the game e-sports atractive, but...
Try to see it from the blizzard's point of view.
You can see some profit maximising business plan there. Nobody will argue about that now.
MBS maybe is not important to broad public and first timers, but it is important to reviewers from PC magazines. And they are the ones that provide massive free marketing for the game. And believe me they will ask why is the game so stupid, that you have to click on so many buildings to make only a few units in, when its 2009!?
Its not a barrier for new people to play the game, having no MBS is a barrier from getting the new people to actually try the game.
So its not the question of keeping a casual player, its the question of making any sort of customers to buy the game, maximise revenue and profits with it (as you have huge fixed initial cost during the development, and the more copies you sell, the less those costs are reflected in the marginal revenue).
Unless Starcraft 2 will build its profits around the long term playing of the game (Pay for play Battle.net would be the cure), it will focus on getting the best possible reviews, and making the most people buy the game...
|
pc magazines and game reviewers should die then
|
I don't care about MBS/Automine as much as I care about automatic ling micro etc.. -_-
|
On November 03 2008 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing).
Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks.
TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it).
whens the last time a progamer has done a build which doesnt make sense? they take calculated risks, with builds planned against what they believe their opponent will do based on who the opponent is and whatever they manage to scout in game, and they also prep for days planning out how to respond in any given situation. that is what strategy IS, and if you dont think its complex in sc thats just because of your very, very, very flawed understanding of the game. just because you cant appreciate something doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
please enlighten me, what are these grave tactical mistakes that top progamers make because of lack of time? (and of course the mistakes are made at lower levels, because the players arent good enough. thats what skill differentiation is all about) dont spout some bullshit about multi pronged attacks and guerilla stuff, it is an unpopular style because it most often leads to the wearing away of your army as your opponent cleans up your smaller raiding groups with superior forces and slowly builds up a unit advantage. however it does exist in some scenarios, watch flash vs bisu on katrina. flash splitting his army 3 different ways to take out the mass expos with bisu recalling everywhere off 3 star arbs to defend. progamers dont play like that because its not a particularly good style (and thats not a result of sc, its inherent in any game because the defender will always have an advantage) + Show Spoiler +actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play.
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
if you want anyone to take you seriously you should stop making idiotic claims in vague abstractions. if you know so much more about the game than people who actually play it, would you please enlighten us? not just brag about your intellectual superiority. people dont only listen to skilled players, skilled players have the necessary background and base knowledge to make informed arguments about the situation. while alot of newbies like yourself make idiotic posts supporting bad positions. people arent agreeing with you not because you arent a skilled player, but because you make bad arguments. and, by the way, the vast majority of the people here posting about sc2 who are against easy mode features are not very good sc players themselves.
|
On November 03 2008 11:02 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 03:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
What Nony wrote here is in contrast to what Artosis wrote in a somewhat recent thread (about the ability to follow the most solid standard build orders and great mechanics being the most important thing).
Also, progamers often gamble with BOs, that is definitely true, we see some really crazy openings sometimes which rarely make sense, and it's all because they think they can get away with it (because they hope the opponent doesn't think they'd do that particular BO). It's basically a blind guess, although TL users will call this amazing psychological tricks.
TL users might confuse BO gambling with having ingenious strategy (but only if a progamer is doing it). whens the last time a progamer has done a build which doesnt make sense? they take calculated risks, with builds planned against what they believe their opponent will do based on who the opponent is and whatever they manage to scout in game, and they also prep for days planning out how to respond in any given situation. that is what strategy IS, and if you dont think its complex in sc thats just because of your very, very, very flawed understanding of the game. just because you cant appreciate something doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Show nested quote +
But really, strategy is incredibly shallow in SC. Tactics, on the other hand, is *theoretically* complex in SC, but in practice it's also quite shallow (but still a lot deeper than strategy) since the high speed forces the players to only do the absolutely most important tasks and ignore a lot of other tasks which *could* give them an advantage *if* they had additional time for them, but since they do not, they are ignored in favor of the more important tasks. Unfortunately though, the most important tasks are rather shallow ("clicky macro" (I like that term) and all related stuff ... all part of mechanics, which the spectators also don't see (another negative aspect)).
please enlighten me, what are these grave tactical mistakes that top progamers make because of lack of time? (and of course the mistakes are made at lower levels, because the players arent good enough. thats what skill differentiation is all about) dont spout some bullshit about multi pronged attacks and guerilla stuff, it is an unpopular style because it most often leads to the wearing away of your army as your opponent cleans up your smaller raiding groups with superior forces and slowly builds up a unit advantage. however it does exist in some scenarios, watch flash vs bisu on katrina. flash splitting his army 3 different ways to take out the mass expos with bisu recalling everywhere off 3 star arbs to defend. progamers dont play like that because its not a particularly good style (and thats not a result of sc, its inherent in any game because the defender will always have an advantage) + Show Spoiler +actually mbs and automining will exacerbate this, which is why its bullshit people claim theyll make for more exciting micro based games with attacks all over and shit. with mbs and automining everyone will have near perfect macro, that makes it far far more dangerous to risk the guerilla warfare style of play, because your little attacks get crushed.. you lose. in sc if you run your opponent all over the map his macro suffers because its hard to multitask like that. in sc2 once you get some kind of unit disadvantage you're pretty much fucked because you're not gonna be able to outplay your opponent.. because it doesnt take any effort to play. , not because theyre incapable of executing it. Show nested quote +
And these discussions are always running into a dead end anyway since players will only listen to who is the most skilled player at this very moment. Which is the reason why gameplay discussion on TL is so goddamn awful - players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay - they just look at how skilled the player who's arguing is at this very moment, not realizing that a lot of gameplay discussion is unrelated to skill (best example: the Blizzard employees, they're all SC noobs, but know a shit ton more about gameplay than any wannabe here from TL)
if you want anyone to take you seriously you should stop making idiotic claims in vague abstractions. if you know so much more about the game than people who actually play it, would you please enlighten us? not just brag about your intellectual superiority. people dont only listen to skilled players, skilled players have the necessary background and base knowledge to make informed arguments about the situation. while alot of newbies like yourself make idiotic posts supporting bad positions. people arent agreeing with you not because you arent a skilled player, but because you make bad arguments. and, by the way, the vast majority of the people here posting about sc2 who are against easy mode features are not very good sc players themselves.
awesome post. well said idra, i agree 100%
|
players don't use common sense, don't use intelligence, don't use good arguments to discuss gameplay
people use good enough arguments
"They like mechanics and doesnt want to lose it"
you are not a revolutionary, you are not a genious nor a new Einstein of RTS
|
Idra you should know that Bo gambles =/= "high level" strategy. You are the one always complaining of Dt rush or 2 gates proxies after all  .
|
yes they should take it out !!!11111111!!1!!111!!
at least from multiplayer >.>
|
If they dont take mbs out, Im not buying the game.
Pretty simple.
|
On November 03 2008 11:25 Boblion wrote:Idra you should know that Bo gambles =/= "high level" strategy. You are the one always complaining of Dt rush or 2 gates proxies after all .
didnt say the game was balanced, just that strategy is important
the players who dont abuse that shit are idiots
they arent actually gambles in the slightest, just frusterating as hell. if t scouts your 2 gate proxy they either have to pull scvs to kill it, you cancel gates and end up ahead anyway if they sent enough scvs, or if they sent too few dont cancel and get a zeal out and then theyre dead, or they go 2 rax and you let them defend it while going fe + cannon, and are ahead. or they just try to bunker and tech and then you have goons out before their factory is done and they die anyway.
and the definition of a dt rush failing is forcing terran to build 5 turrets to take his expansion. sounds ok to me.
moreover, the fact that you can gamble on build orders does not mean strategy is irrelevant. we can play chess and i can try the 4 move checkmate, does that mean its a strategically shallow game?
|
Idra, not trying to challenge you or anything, but: If those strategies were as imbalanced as you imply, they would be used way more frequently, would they not?
I mean, I know strategies can be imbalanced yet aren't used every game because the opponent can get a counter build, but 2 gate proxy and dt rush aren't used even 1/4th of the time.
|
I dont agree with ITW. I see MBS just as another way to play, i expect more strategy on sc2, and really think most of people here forgets that sc2 is just another game, and only time will tell
|
On November 03 2008 12:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Idra, not trying to challenge you or anything, but: If those strategies were as imbalanced as you imply, they would be used way more frequently, would they not?
you see proxy gateways alot, I don't know what games you've been watching..
|
send this article to blizzard
|
United States17042 Posts
On November 03 2008 13:52 jodogohoo wrote:
send this article to blizzard
It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net.
|
On November 03 2008 12:56 lokiM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 12:12 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Idra, not trying to challenge you or anything, but: If those strategies were as imbalanced as you imply, they would be used way more frequently, would they not?
you see proxy gateways alot, I don't know what games you've been watching.. Err..not really. I mean, you see them more than most cheeses, but not to the degree where you go "god damn another proxy gate". Most games they just go straight up. The last time I remember seeing a lot of proxy gates within a short period of time was the GSI. In terms of proleague or any starleagues, they are in the drastic minority compared to 'standard' strategies.
|
On November 03 2008 13:58 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:It's okay, a decent amount of blizzard reads tl.net.
Yeah but in reading incoherent, idiotic posts supporting MBS like some of the ones in this thread they'll think that the community is still "divided" about the issue. I don't think they would give a shit unless we were united behind the stance that these UI fuck-ups are not okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
