|
On January 09 2011 04:24 eggs wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 03:57 Greentellon wrote:On January 09 2011 03:38 etheovermind wrote:On January 09 2011 00:43 mmdmmd wrote:Here is what the winner of  July vs  OdinMvP has to say about SC2 micros. + Show Spoiler +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.
thats not what he means at all. Hes not talking about imbalances but rather that Terran can develop micro but there isn't as much room for development in micro mechanics for Protoss and zerg.
|
On January 09 2011 04:25 Deadlyhazard wrote:
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.
Wait, there are proximity mines in SC2? Have you actually played SC2?
|
On January 09 2011 04:26 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 04:24 eggs wrote:On January 09 2011 03:57 Greentellon wrote:On January 09 2011 03:38 etheovermind wrote:On January 09 2011 00:43 mmdmmd wrote:Here is what the winner of July vs OdinMvP has to say about SC2 micros. + Show Spoiler +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. thats not what he means at all. Hes not talking about imbalances but rather that Terran can develop micro but there isn't as much room for development in micro mechanics for Protoss and zerg.
that's not what i was saying he was saying. i was just pointing out that the person i quoted shouldn't have taken such offense to a Zerg player making an off-comment about Protoss micro.
edit: actually i re-read what you said and what i said, and how is that different? the difference is that marine micro has more room for development in that it can be more effective. that gives it an advantage that protoss/zerg players can't match with equivalent T1 unit control. so yes, this leads to Terran players with solid micro mechanics to have an advantage over a equally skilled player who happens to play Protoss or Zerg.
|
I think taking steps to get longer games will help popularity. I mean, once in a while having a pylon hidden in your main and getting proxied is alright, but a longer game usually means the better player also has better chances at winning, and means more exciting battles and strategies.
I just hope GOM has enough money to stick to the league for at least the next six months or even more so that a large fanbase can develop. Korea is where SC2 is at, and losing their player pool would be a huge blow.
|
Why all the ppl who thinks that sc2 will be better than SCBW have less than 100 post....
|
Starcraft 1 matches are exciting to watch, thats what people come live to be a part of.
Maybe people dont like to be a part of a live chees fest.(sc2)
|
i wish there was a tournament for rock scissors paper... epic adertising making the players look so strong and sexy...
|
On January 09 2011 04:35 eggs wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 04:26 etheovermind wrote:On January 09 2011 04:24 eggs wrote:On January 09 2011 03:57 Greentellon wrote:On January 09 2011 03:38 etheovermind wrote:On January 09 2011 00:43 mmdmmd wrote:Here is what the winner of July vs OdinMvP has to say about SC2 micros. + Show Spoiler +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. thats not what he means at all. Hes not talking about imbalances but rather that Terran can develop micro but there isn't as much room for development in micro mechanics for Protoss and zerg. that's not what i was saying he was saying. i was just pointing out that the person i quoted shouldn't have taken such offense to a Zerg player making an off-comment about Protoss micro. edit: actually i re-read what you said and what i said, and how is that different? the difference is that marine micro has more room for development in that it can be more effective. that gives it an advantage that protoss/zerg players can't match with equivalent T1 unit control. so yes, this leads to Terran players with solid micro mechanics to have an advantage over a equally skilled player who happens to play Protoss or Zerg.
Having everything be the same isn't always the best solution. Zerg have infestors to stop mass bio. Protoss have colossus and high templars.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
july's point about micro could be referring to the fact that sc1 mechanics were less smooth and intelligent, so the room for microing is huge for almost every unit. the mechanical imperfections of the game gave players the creative room to not only play better, but play beyond expectations of the casual audience. people are more amazed by the micro plays that use their familiar units to do magical things. when units are "smarter," it's harder to showcase the extraordinarily entertaining micro plays.
|
On January 09 2011 05:41 oneofthem wrote:
july's point about micro could be referring to the fact that sc1 mechanics were less smooth and intelligent, so the room for microing is huge for almost every unit. the mechanical imperfections of the game gave players the creative room to not only play better, but play beyond expectations of the casual audience. people are more amazed by the micro plays that use their familiar units to do magical things. when units are "smarter," it's harder to showcase the extraordinarily entertaining micro plays.
Yes exactly.
|
SC BW matches were back and forth most of the time, SC2 its just 1 big bland battle most of the time with some shit deing stupidly fast and thats it.
|
On January 09 2011 05:01 therockmanxx wrote:
Why all the ppl who thinks that sc2 will be better than SCBW have less than 100 post....
Wait... YOU have less than 100 posts.
This thread is hilarious.
|
On January 09 2011 03:57 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 03:38 etheovermind wrote:On January 09 2011 00:43 mmdmmd wrote:Here is what the winner of July vs OdinMvP has to say about SC2 micros. + Show Spoiler +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 is obviously comparing SC2 micro to BW micro. I think he is sadden by the fact that there are too many features that makes SC2 micro too easy. smart cast, auto surround, etc
|
On January 09 2011 05:41 oneofthem wrote:
july's point about micro could be referring to the fact that sc1 mechanics were less smooth and intelligent, so the room for microing is huge for almost every unit. the mechanical imperfections of the game gave players the creative room to not only play better, but play beyond expectations of the casual audience. people are more amazed by the micro plays that use their familiar units to do magical things. when units are "smarter," it's harder to showcase the extraordinarily entertaining micro plays.
QFT
You said this 100x better than I could. Thanks.
Reaver is a great example of when imperfect mechanic meets perfect micro.
|
On January 09 2011 04:28 Dionyseus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 04:25 Deadlyhazard wrote:
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. Wait, there are proximity mines in SC2? Have you actually played SC2?
I thought thats what the raven thing was called.
Edit: seeker missile damn it
|
On January 09 2011 05:41 oneofthem wrote:
july's point about micro could be referring to the fact that sc1 mechanics were less smooth and intelligent, so the room for microing is huge for almost every unit. the mechanical imperfections of the game gave players the creative room to not only play better, but play beyond expectations of the casual audience. people are more amazed by the micro plays that use their familiar units to do magical things. when units are "smarter," it's harder to showcase the extraordinarily entertaining micro plays.
You are correct but where should the line be drawn? To what extent should the game mechanics be kept flawed so that players can do amazing stuff? I'm all for smart pathfinding, but auto-muta stacking seems a little dumb tbh.
|
On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 05:41 oneofthem wrote:
july's point about micro could be referring to the fact that sc1 mechanics were less smooth and intelligent, so the room for microing is huge for almost every unit. the mechanical imperfections of the game gave players the creative room to not only play better, but play beyond expectations of the casual audience. people are more amazed by the micro plays that use their familiar units to do magical things. when units are "smarter," it's harder to showcase the extraordinarily entertaining micro plays.
You are correct but where should the line be drawn? To what extent should the game mechanics be kept flawed so that players can do amazing stuff? I'm all for smart pathfinding, but auto-muta stacking seems a little dumb tbh.
Um there is a perfect line drawn in the shape of bw. I consider the mechanic balance in that game to be right where it needs to be. Better than wc2, harder than sc2.
|
The problem with the "hard" BW mechanics is, that they make it difficult to attract new players to the game
|
On January 09 2011 05:01 therockmanxx wrote:
Why all the ppl who thinks that sc2 will be better than SCBW have less than 100 post....
Hmm, funny you mention that. Yeah, I just joined here. I've been lurking for a few months. Guess why I joined? SC2! As a casual gamer/viewer, I previously had little interest in SC:BW. However, SC2 really appealed to me and got me to the point where I'm now a decent player and capable of watching games critically rather than just casually. SC2 did that for me, not BW.
That's where I drew my inspiration for the thought that perhaps SC2 is more casual friendly than BW. No, I don't care about whether or not this is true in Korea. All I know is that the sensation is true where I live, in the US, and in many other non-Korean locations as well.
|
On January 09 2011 06:35 MaDBread wrote:
The problem with the "hard" BW mechanics is, that they make it difficult to attract new players to the game
But BW was an even newer idea during it's era compare to sc2. It didn't stop ppl adopting it back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
