On January 09 2011 00:07 WarSong wrote: SC2 blows BW out of the water, visually.
That is an opinion I don't agree with. SC2 has higher definition textures and is in 3D. Technically it has better graphics. In my personal opinion BW looks better.
Thats very true. I hate the WoW graficstyle that Sc2 has. For me Sc2 is like a Blockbuster. A game that attracts many people but somehow have no soul. In sc:bw there many interersting mechniscs like the shield-mechanic, better units etc. The new generation of Gamedesigner sucks unfortunately. I have watched all 3 GSL but it has not the magic of sc:bw and i never really played sc:bw on a high level.
On January 09 2011 00:59 Senx wrote: Thats a grim outlook for the future, what happens if GOM shuts down GSL because its simply not a viable business to uphold anymore?
What if the ironic situation happens where NA/EU is where the real SC2 scene is and that korea becomes the small "foreign" community, oh man, wouldn't that be funny =o
If GOM folded I really don't think it would be anything like a deathblow to SC2. It would definitely shake up the positions of Blizzard and Kespa/OGN/MBC. In my opinion it would probably push the parties closer together. Blizzard would end up having to look to them to make SC2 a viable esport (which tbh they should have done to begin with)
I agree, if GSL goes down. It might actually opens up new opportunities. Both Kespa and Blizz wants SC2.
But neither Blizzard and Kespa want to work together. Kespa wants to lead a sc2 league but then how they do it like with sc bw and blizzard wants their royalties for the use of both game. They're in a situation where nobody wants to really cooporate and I don't see anything changing about that without some drastic changes in atleast one of the 2 companies.
Considering the sprites were made from 3D models a high res version of those would be easy at least, the terrains would have to be redrawn and i'm not sure about the doodads i suppose they could have been 3D models too.
As a someone who has follow RTS gaming in general since 10 years ago, and considering the discussion about graphics, SC2 has improved graphics but they are worse than BW in a spectator point of view, in a battle you cant say what is going on until the end, and I have a new brand PC with really nice configuration. On topic, according with the stats in gametrics SC2 has been declining in PC bangs in Korea since the middle of the second season, the Boxer effect is just not enough to support a game that is inferior to its predecessor altought is the best new RTS (big part because others developers just make shitty sequel games from the original classics). I have read many forums and played several RTS and any of them when the released game is just not so "good", the new-bie community say lets wait , the patches, the X-pac , etc are going to change for good and make the game the best one, and the experienced ones say: the game has flaws in mechanics and gameplay that cant be corrected, 100% of the time the time the second group has been right.
On January 09 2011 01:48 palexhur wrote: As a someone who has follow RTS gaming in general since 10 years ago, and considering the discussion about graphics, SC2 has improved graphics but they are worse than BW in a spectator point of view, in a battle you cant say what is going on until the end, and I have a new brand PC with really nice configuration. On topic, according with the stats in gametrics SC2 has been declining in PC bangs in Korea since the middle of the second season, the Boxer effect is just not enough to support a game that is inferior to its predecessor altought is the best new RTS (big part because others developers just make shitty sequel games from the original classics). I have read many forums and played several RTS and any of them when the released game is just not so "good", the new-bie community say lets wait , the patches, the X-pac , etc are going to change for good and make the game the best one, and the experienced ones say: the game has flaws in mechanics and gameplay that cant be corrected, 100% of the time the time the second group has been right.
On January 07 2011 08:20 niteReloaded wrote: Hmm... I'm not sure how important the live viewing numbers really are.
If 100K people would watch the stream, and 0 be in the audience, it'd still be hugely attractive for the sponsors, the circle is completed and the story ends there, no?
Exactly what I'm thinking. Perhaps most of the SC2 followers in Korea don't realy wanna travel? If they are getting good numbers from livestream, it's all good.
On January 09 2011 00:59 Senx wrote: Thats a grim outlook for the future, what happens if GOM shuts down GSL because its simply not a viable business to uphold anymore?
What if the ironic situation happens where NA/EU is where the real SC2 scene is and that korea becomes the small "foreign" community, oh man, wouldn't that be funny =o
If GOM folded I really don't think it would be anything like a deathblow to SC2. It would definitely shake up the positions of Blizzard and Kespa/OGN/MBC. In my opinion it would probably push the parties closer together. Blizzard would end up having to look to them to make SC2 a viable esport (which tbh they should have done to begin with)
I agree, if GSL goes down. It might actually opens up new opportunities. Both Kespa and Blizz wants SC2.
But neither Blizzard and Kespa want to work together. Kespa wants to lead a sc2 league but then how they do it like with sc bw and blizzard wants their royalties for the use of both game. They're in a situation where nobody wants to really cooporate and I don't see anything changing about that without some drastic changes in atleast one of the 2 companies.
If there's money to be made they would find a way to work together.
The GOM thing is Blizzard thinking they don't need Kespa to make SC2 a success. If it ultimately fails they'd have no real choice but to either re-assess their strategy on the Korean market or just give up entirely. I don't see them giving up, and I don't see any other alternative.
Maybe it's too hopeful of me to think this but if the day came that GOM pulled out, both Blizzard and Kespa would look at it as a second chance to do things the right way
Starcraft 2 still has a lot of mutation to undergo. The improved graphics argument is rather irrelevant, in the sense that a modern game will obviously improve in that area. The game has however become more interesting since launch and probably will continue to do. But monitoring results on the short term is after all a very volatile affair and Blizzard do have long term plans for the game, where I feel the game will excel more, with 2 expansions. BW has reached the pinnacle of its potential and SC2 is only starting to be explored now. I say give it time, there is enough interest in SC2 for it to stay around and it is highly unlikely that the game will regress.
I hate how people defending BW say that it's better because everything is "harder". The only reason it's harder is because the game mechanics weren't that good in the first place. I see SC2 as more of a strategy game, and BW like some microfest. You shouldn't NEED 400+ APM to do well in a STRATEGY game. It should be about positioning, unit composition, and other stuff, not as much as fancy micro.
July Q：第三局飞龙操作让人眼前一亮。 Q: Your Muta control was very good in Game 3.
A：我希望虫族不要一直和现在一样--没有微操以及一些细节部分的操作。虫族玩家不要局限在飞龙上，而是在很多地方出现一些变化。别人枪兵都有操作，但是虫族基本没有微操。神族好像也没有，这一点让我非常遗憾。 A: I don't want Zerg to Stay the same as now: no micro possibilities. Zerg players should not restrict themselves to mutas only, they need more varieties. Terran has Marine micro, but there is nothing for Zerg. Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed.
I see people have been avoiding looking at this post but it definitely deserves to be looked at.
On January 09 2011 03:28 MahatmaSC2 wrote: I hate how people defending BW say that it's better because everything is "harder". The only reason it's harder is because the game mechanics weren't that good in the first place. I see SC2 as more of a strategy game, and BW like some microfest. You shouldn't NEED 400+ APM to do well in a STRATEGY game. It should be about positioning, unit composition, and other stuff, not as much as fancy micro.
The problem with this is that you immediately assume that BW has less strategic depth than SC2 because it is harder to play, when if anything, in addition to being harder to play it is the strategically deeper game as well.
July Q：第三局飞龙操作让人眼前一亮。 Q: Your Muta control was very good in Game 3.
A：我希望虫族不要一直和现在一样--没有微操以及一些细节部分的操作。虫族玩家不要局限在飞龙上，而是在很多地方出现一些变化。别人枪兵都有操作，但是虫族基本没有微操。神族好像也没有，这一点让我非常遗憾。 A: I don't want Zerg to Stay the same as now: no micro possibilities. Zerg players should not restrict themselves to mutas only, they need more varieties. Terran has Marine micro, but there is nothing for Zerg. Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed.
I see people have been avoiding looking at this post but it definitely deserves to be looked at.
"Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed." Uhhh..what is he on about? -Zealot micro is essential, need to control them correctly to protect weaker units and act as a "meat wall" -Stalker mobility is highly abusable, especially with blink. Blink stalkers is a unit "that you can't micro"? What? -Sentries, protect them from EMP, enemy fire, using guardian shield so everyone gets protected (even chargelots), forcefields.. -What about phoenixes? "You can't micro phoenixes"? Phoenix harrass needs more than a-moving and thus they can be "microed". -High templars, protecting them and using them -Void ray charge trickery etc..
Now one unit alone may not have this extremely high "micro potential", but now do those things at the same time. Sentries trap/split enemy army while chargelots charge in so they don't get stuck behind other troops, high templars and sentries neatly spread out in positions that give them maximum potential while at the same time you blink wounded stalkers to the back of the army so they don't die.
Can you seriously tell me that "Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro"? You need have around 500apm to manage all that to it's fullest potential.
Or is there something I missed in the definition of "micro"?
July Q：第三局飞龙操作让人眼前一亮。 Q: Your Muta control was very good in Game 3.
A：我希望虫族不要一直和现在一样--没有微操以及一些细节部分的操作。虫族玩家不要局限在飞龙上，而是在很多地方出现一些变化。别人枪兵都有操作，但是虫族基本没有微操。神族好像也没有，这一点让我非常遗憾。 A: I don't want Zerg to Stay the same as now: no micro possibilities. Zerg players should not restrict themselves to mutas only, they need more varieties. Terran has Marine micro, but there is nothing for Zerg. Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed.
I see people have been avoiding looking at this post but it definitely deserves to be looked at.
Zerg have speedlings, and Protoss have stalkers. Also zerg requires a lot of micro for banelings.
July Q：第三局飞龙操作让人眼前一亮。 Q: Your Muta control was very good in Game 3.
A：我希望虫族不要一直和现在一样--没有微操以及一些细节部分的操作。虫族玩家不要局限在飞龙上，而是在很多地方出现一些变化。别人枪兵都有操作，但是虫族基本没有微操。神族好像也没有，这一点让我非常遗憾。 A: I don't want Zerg to Stay the same as now: no micro possibilities. Zerg players should not restrict themselves to mutas only, they need more varieties. Terran has Marine micro, but there is nothing for Zerg. Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed.
I see people have been avoiding looking at this post but it definitely deserves to be looked at.
Zerg have speedlings, and Protoss have stalkers. Also zerg requires a lot of micro for banelings.
Not according to July ^_^
Besides, Marine micro vs Baneling micro is such a huge difference in control its not worth comparing.
July Q：第三局飞龙操作让人眼前一亮。 Q: Your Muta control was very good in Game 3.
A：我希望虫族不要一直和现在一样--没有微操以及一些细节部分的操作。虫族玩家不要局限在飞龙上，而是在很多地方出现一些变化。别人枪兵都有操作，但是虫族基本没有微操。神族好像也没有，这一点让我非常遗憾。 A: I don't want Zerg to Stay the same as now: no micro possibilities. Zerg players should not restrict themselves to mutas only, they need more varieties. Terran has Marine micro, but there is nothing for Zerg. Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed.
I see people have been avoiding looking at this post but it definitely deserves to be looked at.
"Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed." Uhhh..what is he on about? -Zealot micro is essential, need to control them correctly to protect weaker units and act as a "meat wall" -Stalker mobility is highly abusable, especially with blink. Blink stalkers is a unit "that you can't micro"? What? -Sentries, protect them from EMP, enemy fire, using guardian shield so everyone gets protected (even chargelots), forcefields.. -What about phoenixes? "You can't micro phoenixes"? Phoenix harrass needs more than a-moving and thus they can be "microed". -High templars, protecting them and using them -Void ray charge trickery etc..
Now one unit alone may not have this extremely high "micro potential", but now do those things at the same time. Sentries trap/split enemy army while chargelots charge in so they don't get stuck behind other troops, high templars and sentries neatly spread out in positions that give them maximum potential while at the same time you blink wounded stalkers to the back of the army so they don't die.
Can you seriously tell me that "Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro"? You need have around 500apm to manage all that to it's fullest potential.
Or is there something I missed in the definition of "micro"?
July Q：第三局飞龙操作让人眼前一亮。 Q: Your Muta control was very good in Game 3.
A：我希望虫族不要一直和现在一样--没有微操以及一些细节部分的操作。虫族玩家不要局限在飞龙上，而是在很多地方出现一些变化。别人枪兵都有操作，但是虫族基本没有微操。神族好像也没有，这一点让我非常遗憾。 A: I don't want Zerg to Stay the same as now: no micro possibilities. Zerg players should not restrict themselves to mutas only, they need more varieties. Terran has Marine micro, but there is nothing for Zerg. Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed.
I see people have been avoiding looking at this post but it definitely deserves to be looked at.
"Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed." Uhhh..what is he on about? -Zealot micro is essential, need to control them correctly to protect weaker units and act as a "meat wall" -Stalker mobility is highly abusable, especially with blink. Blink stalkers is a unit "that you can't micro"? What? -Sentries, protect them from EMP, enemy fire, using guardian shield so everyone gets protected (even chargelots), forcefields.. -What about phoenixes? "You can't micro phoenixes"? Phoenix harrass needs more than a-moving and thus they can be "microed". -High templars, protecting them and using them -Void ray charge trickery etc..
Now one unit alone may not have this extremely high "micro potential", but now do those things at the same time. Sentries trap/split enemy army while chargelots charge in so they don't get stuck behind other troops, high templars and sentries neatly spread out in positions that give them maximum potential while at the same time you blink wounded stalkers to the back of the army so they don't die.
Can you seriously tell me that "Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro"? You need have around 500apm to manage all that to it's fullest potential.
Or is there something I missed in the definition of "micro"?
July Q：第三局飞龙操作让人眼前一亮。 Q: Your Muta control was very good in Game 3.
A：我希望虫族不要一直和现在一样--没有微操以及一些细节部分的操作。虫族玩家不要局限在飞龙上，而是在很多地方出现一些变化。别人枪兵都有操作，但是虫族基本没有微操。神族好像也没有，这一点让我非常遗憾。 A: I don't want Zerg to Stay the same as now: no micro possibilities. Zerg players should not restrict themselves to mutas only, they need more varieties. Terran has Marine micro, but there is nothing for Zerg. Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed.
I see people have been avoiding looking at this post but it definitely deserves to be looked at.
"Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro, I am very disappointed." Uhhh..what is he on about? -Zealot micro is essential, need to control them correctly to protect weaker units and act as a "meat wall" -Stalker mobility is highly abusable, especially with blink. Blink stalkers is a unit "that you can't micro"? What? -Sentries, protect them from EMP, enemy fire, using guardian shield so everyone gets protected (even chargelots), forcefields.. -What about phoenixes? "You can't micro phoenixes"? Phoenix harrass needs more than a-moving and thus they can be "microed". -High templars, protecting them and using them -Void ray charge trickery etc..
Now one unit alone may not have this extremely high "micro potential", but now do those things at the same time. Sentries trap/split enemy army while chargelots charge in so they don't get stuck behind other troops, high templars and sentries neatly spread out in positions that give them maximum potential while at the same time you blink wounded stalkers to the back of the army so they don't die.
Can you seriously tell me that "Protoss also doesn't seem to have any unit you can micro"? You need have around 500apm to manage all that to it's fullest potential.
Or is there something I missed in the definition of "micro"?
he's a zerg player. he said Protoss doesn't seem to have any unit to micro like you can micro marines. even out of all of the examples you pointed out, none have the impact of marine micro. obviously you can "micro" any unit of any race. but marine micro is so powerful in early game against every matchup that it gives good terran players an advantage.
They should scrap colossus and just put reaver back in, a unit that really requires micro and makes the audience scream. It's such a cost heavy unit but it's SO awesome to see a scrarab fly into a SCV line.
The closest thing SC2 has to that is a baneling or proximity mine. Nobody uses proximity mines.
EPT
