EPTI'd disagree based on facts alone...beyond numerous inaccuracies (five races? What game did you play), I'm still baffled on how you could compare SC1 to driving a manual then praise it on how easy it is to learn. So confuse.
Returning to Starcraft 1, thoughts. - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
I'd disagree based on facts alone...beyond numerous inaccuracies (five races? What game did you play), I'm still baffled on how you could compare SC1 to driving a manual then praise it on how easy it is to learn. So confuse. | ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
| ||
|
wankey
98 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:46 KumquatExpress wrote: I'm not sure your points are very valid. Have you tried playing on ICCUP instead of bnet? I mean, your average bnet player isn't really the type that would, say, visit a site like teamliquid or watch a proleague match. The movement of units has gotten much better in SC2 compared to SC1 due to fluid motion, thereby allowing units to move smoothly around others instead of getting bugged and having seizures like in SC1. And for most of the body of your "balance" thread, you've evaded the fact that SC1 has different damage types and different damage reductions dependent on size as well. What you've said about attacking in SC2 makes me wonder if you use control group hotkeys. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything; sorry if it appears that way. Also, SC1 has a pretty damn high learning curve. I haven't played WC3 at anything more than a casual level of play, but I feel as if it takes a lot less of the actual multitask and APM skills that SC1 does. True, I'm not an average player. Yes I use control group hotkeys. 1 for infantry, 2 for mech and 3 for vikings lol. 4-0 are for buildings and what not. But yeah, isn't the same as 1,2, 3, 4, 5 for squad 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Yes I might have evaded that fact that there are different explosive types (although I did mention it later how it contributed to the balance). I just find that it was easier to tell, which was small, medium large vs which are armoured or light. Also, the different damage usually implied things that showed up on screen. If you see a small explosive looking sprite, it's usually explosive. If you see bullets it's usually just regular. I think the point I was trying to make was the easy to understand concepts in SC1 rather than the oddities like armored, light, massive which are just attributes. You can naturally categorize things in small, medium, large rather than randomly assigning attributes (although they are not random, to an average person, why aren't marines armored and Roaches are?) I wasn't really trying to make any statistical arguments on balance, more so about game design in general. | ||
|
wankey
98 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:52 omninmo wrote: driving enthusiast prefer manual transmission. if you drive a sports car with a manual transmission then you are missing out on all the control. regardless, hows the weather in irvine? Yeah but we're talking about a Ferrari Enzo with it's paddle shifts and 0.001ms clutch vs your 5 shift Lambo. :D | ||
|
Disastorm
United States922 Posts
| ||
|
Xenocide_Knight
Korea (South)2625 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:36 wankey wrote: Uh, I'm just an average player. This post isn't really to point out the balance things but just overall how I felt. Not saying I'm a balance master, but at least to me, Starcraft 1's balance is a lot easier to understand (also granted I haven't played Starcraft 1 for about 5 years so you can consider me a SC2 player going to SC1) The balance also feel more forgiving in SC1 than in SC2. For instance, you get a bunch of dragoons, there aren't really any counters to them other than siege tanks. Whereas in SC2, marauders and ghosts make quick job of stalkers. Different game I know but definitely harder to learn in SC2. Yea, actually you're right on a lot of points. Sorry, don't mind me lol. I'm just too nostalgic. Mostly I was just irked about your comments on the sound/graphics because right now i'm really annoyed at SC2 sound/graphics.. | ||
|
wankey
98 Posts
| ||
|
knightpraetor
United States180 Posts
| ||
|
Smu
Serbia164 Posts
The lack of "overpowered" units is actually a lack of really powerful, strategic units that are that difficult to control and can bring a huge swing to the game (think reavers, mines, lurkers...). It's a lack of really fun units that are hard for blizzard to balance. Sounds are great in BW. Voice acting from BW was a lot better then SC2, even usage of effects, which were quite outdated was way more tasteful and original. Regarding balance, you are completely on the wrong track, I couldn't disagree more ... | ||
|
SwiftBunny
Canada134 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:48 fabiano wrote: I wish I could go back to BW. Now that I have a 20" widescreen monitor its impossible to play BW  I tried windowed mode, but then it gets to damn small. I tried the 2x mode, doesnt fit the height. I tried fullscreen, I cant see half of the HUD, neither the psi counter. I've googled some fix to this, but they are kind of complex, if someone knows a simple way to play BW on my monitor setup, please tell me (and no i cant go back to CRT). GPU SCALING. Ati: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/wD1n7.png) http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=279&threadid=125270 I believe You must lower your display resolution for the option to be selectable, select the middle option then return to your native desktop resolution. This makes it so When you go fullscreen its 4:3 Square instead of Stretched to fit widescreen. I dont know how to fix Scaling for Nvidia, there is probably a way.. Ati ftw? | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On May 30 2010 14:43 Floophead_III wrote: As a game, starcraft 2 obliterates BW. It's better in every single way except map design. There's an incredible dynamic of strategy and plenty of room for micro, though perhaps not quite as gimmicky-complex as BW (but keep in mind the age difference in the game). The addition of automine and MBS and smartcasting are the best things that could happen to SC. It makes the game much more about strategy at all levels, whereas broodwar was almost entirely about execution and mechanics until you hit around B level, and even then mechanics were probably the dominating factor. While this was good for creating a nice separation in skill levels it meant that most players could never execute their desired strategies because it was just too hard to do. (I myself never reached B level because it just took too much work to get my mechanics that good). SC2 still has a great base of fundamentals, but it is much more about strategy than BW was at low/mid level. You claim that balance is a serious problem, but actually I feel that SC2 is exceptionally well balanced already (if small changes like roach supply cost are tipping the scales then clearly it's well balanced). A lot of balance issues actually stem from there being so many more decisions to make than in BW. In BW your unit compositions are pretty much set by the matchup (aside from TvZ where you can clearly mech or bio). The game was actually so poorly balanced that most units did not even have a role in standard armies. I feel like every unit in SC2 has a role or use and should be made at some point, even the mothership (lategame PvT I think they're a requirement to deal with tanks.) All in all, the game is great. As we all know bnet is what the real problem is. How is SC1 not about strategy? It's just that the strategy has already been mapped out, so you feel as if there isn't much strategy. SC2 will reach that phase eventually, and more likely at a faster rate. When it does, the game will boil down to mechanics, just like its predecessor. Just for irony's sake, I'll put out the argument you SC2 guys love to make. It's only beta! The game HASN'T been mapped out yet, so you can't tell how the lessened emphasis on mechanics will affect play when it HAS been mapped out. As brought up, SC1 is a rather simple game in itself, but the interactions between the units gave the game incredible depth. In programming terms, SC1 is C, while SC2 is python, lisp, etc. | ||
|
shurgen
350 Posts
| ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On May 30 2010 15:14 SwiftBunny wrote: http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=279&threadid=125270 I believe You must lower your display resolution for the option to be selectable, select the middle option then return to your native desktop resolution. This makes it so When you go fullscreen its 4:3 Square instead of Stretched to fit widescreen. I dont know how to fix Scaling for Nvidia, there is probably a way.. Ati ftw? ![[image loading]](http://img193.imageshack.us/i/tempwak.jpg/) You can also adjust it on the monitor itself. | ||
|
wankey
98 Posts
On May 30 2010 15:30 shurgen wrote: Lol just from reading your post its pretty obvious that you never played BW at what a "high" level... Of course not. I had a life, playing SC was purely for enjoyment. :D User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Kuri
Canada88 Posts
On May 30 2010 15:44 wankey wrote: Of course not. I had a life, playing SC was purely for enjoyment. :D Was that really necessary? Anyways, since you haven't played SC1 at a high level, your opening post is incredibly uninformed and that's the reason for the tension building up. | ||
|
Kezzer
United States1268 Posts
| ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
I don't think the OP talked outside his bounds of knowledge at all as some people seem to be suggesting. Did you have to play BW at a top tier level to comment on the graphics or sound? | ||
|
TieN.nS)
United States2131 Posts
On May 30 2010 16:05 Ocedic wrote: Did you have to play BW at a top tier level to comment on the graphics or sound? Nah you just have to have good taste to appreciate them, which the OP clearly lacks. | ||
|
pred470r
Bulgaria3265 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 30 2010 15:44 wankey wrote: Of course not. I had a life, playing SC was purely for enjoyment. :D Completely unnecessary. | ||
| ||
