|
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?
This this this.
It's pretty obvious that it's easier to make units do what you want in SC2, but really, how else do you want it? All it is is an unfortunate side effect of improved technology. Should Blizzard really make unit patching stupider intentionally?
I think the effects of better technology is definitely unfortunate, but I can't really see it any other way.
|
On January 09 2011 06:31 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote: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.
There are bigger problems than microing in SC2 that makes it feel just about one big blob vs blob.
1)The map pool
2)Connected to #1, games last too short.
3)Connected to #1, all-ins and cheese are too powerful.
4)Connected to #1, games end too fast.
4)Again connected to #1, room for micro is severely limited for the most part because of god damn chokes and narrow path ways all around the maps. If there were huge open grounds with enough space for armies to move, SC2 units are actually smart enough to line up and engage in a manner which looks nothing like a big ball, but more like an army in formation. Also, with more space, people wouldn't one control group and we'd see people splitting up, because if you one control group and your opponent splits up, he'll have bigger concave.
GSL is changing the maps for bigger ones so we'll be able to compare the game better to BW when that happens. Until then, you can only be patient.
|
Blizzard has nerfed into oblivion every single cool SC2 abilities/units/strategies...
Mothership, hunter seeker missile, zerg underground movement, terran drop strategies, reapers...
They don't necessarily need to dumb down the units IQ, they need to make the games more fun and create room for hardcore micro that would heavily punish anyone who isn't good enough.
Right now, Starcraft 2 is bland for me. There's not one single "oh f***" moment. Like in War3, you can pretty much guess the winner after a few minutes since there are so few things you can do to recover considering how weak harass is and how powerful a-move is in this game.
And I'm sick of hearing people complaining about the maps.
Bigger maps wouldn't change the fact that there are no hardcore micro/harass strat.
You might reduce the number of 1 base all-in and replace them with 2 base all-in, that's about it.
|
On January 09 2011 06:42 Cofo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote: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? This this this. It's pretty obvious that it's easier to make units do what you want in SC2, but really, how else do you want it? All it is is an unfortunate side effect of improved technology. Should Blizzard really make unit patching stupider intentionally? I think the effects of better technology is definitely unfortunate, but I can't really see it any other way.
This is exactly there is so much whining regards SC2's difficulty. The game is as difficult as its predecessor at its core, but things like MBS and auto-mine are really needed to free up the unnecessary load for multitasking. Yes, clicking 8 buildings and making 8 different units in 2-3 seconds is amazing, but why is it really a "skill"? It is just practice, there's nothing amazing about it. A monkey could also do that if you replace gateways with big boxes with smaller boxes in them to click for. It isn't really skill, and I'm glad the game is easier in that sense. David Gilmour is probably nothing in terms of speed compared to Yngwie Malmsteen, but with each note David Gilmour gives much more emotion. Shredding your ass off means very little in music.
|
As long as I see this on TL:
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KCtpj.png)
I am not convinced that SC2 needs Korea at all. Consequently, I shouldn't matter whether GSL tanks or not. Anyway, there's is still a lot of incentive (i.e. money) in GSL for progamers in Korea to move on. Give it a bit of time, SC2 will be fine, even in Korea.
|
On January 09 2011 07:12 Lightspeed wrote:As long as I see this on TL: I am not convinced that SC2 needs Korea at all. Consequently, I shouldn't matter whether GSL tanks or not. Anyway, there's is still a lot of incentive (i.e. money) in GSL for progamers in Korea to move on. Give it a bit of time, SC2 will be fine, even in Korea.
I believe this is correct.
|
On January 09 2011 07:19 Quesadilla wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 07:12 Lightspeed wrote:As long as I see this on TL: I am not convinced that SC2 needs Korea at all. Consequently, I shouldn't matter whether GSL tanks or not. Anyway, there's is still a lot of incentive (i.e. money) in GSL for progamers in Korea to move on. Give it a bit of time, SC2 will be fine, even in Korea. I believe this is correct.
yea no problem with this. foreigners are in their own world really.
|
On January 09 2011 07:12 Lightspeed wrote:As long as I see this on TL: I am not convinced that SC2 needs Korea at all. Consequently, I shouldn't matter whether GSL tanks or not. Anyway, there's is still a lot of incentive (i.e. money) in GSL for progamers in Korea to move on. Give it a bit of time, SC2 will be fine, even in Korea.
this is spot on, even ret said a few days back when he was on some stream that korea is really boring now that he went out of the code A tournament, and that he'd much prefer to come back with all the activity in NA & EU.
|
On January 09 2011 07:12 Lightspeed wrote:As long as I see this on TL: I am not convinced that SC2 needs Korea at all. Consequently, I shouldn't matter whether GSL tanks or not. Anyway, there's is still a lot of incentive (i.e. money) in GSL for progamers in Korea to move on. Give it a bit of time, SC2 will be fine, even in Korea.
Its not that Korea needs SC2 but that BLIZZARD needs Korea to like SC2 like BW and cash in with the big $$ and thats why we have the huge adertisments and the GLS tourneys sponsored by BLIZZARD. But its not going acording to plan for now. Blizzard doesnt care about the rest of the world really when they were expecting 50++% of the profit to come from Korea only comparing it with BW sales.
Actually this is not a disscusion about SC2 doing fine outside of Korea... Everybody knows that. Its only about the korean scene and that ppl are not seeing what everyone outside of Korea is seeing. One big reason is that BW progaming is still going and its x10 more entertaining to watch and BW is dead outside of Korea so you cant really see anything better than SC2 right now.
Yes SC2 is shit compared to BW from a spectating point right now but Is there anything else better to watch than SC2 outside of Korea? NO. Why would the average korean wanna waste his time watching SC2 when its actually not on TV and BW is more entertaing to watch? Here is your answer.
NEW doesnt beat BETTER even if its artifically pumped with Blizzards help with the huge tourney $$ awards. This can only attracts players for a short period of time but never an audience.
|
On January 09 2011 07:54 SkelA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 07:12 Lightspeed wrote:As long as I see this on TL: I am not convinced that SC2 needs Korea at all. Consequently, I shouldn't matter whether GSL tanks or not. Anyway, there's is still a lot of incentive (i.e. money) in GSL for progamers in Korea to move on. Give it a bit of time, SC2 will be fine, even in Korea. Its not that Korea needs SC2 but that BLIZZARD needs Korea to like SC2 like BW and cash in with the big $$ and thats why we have the huge adertisments and the GLS tourneys sponsored by BLIZZARD. But its not going acording to plan for now. Blizzard doesnt care about the rest of the world really when they were expecting 50++% of the profit to come from Korea only comparing it with BW sales. Actually this is not a disscusion about SC2 doing fine outside of Korea... Everybody knows that. Its only about the korean scene and that ppl are not seeing what everyone outside of Korea is seeing. One big reason is that BW progaming is still going and its x10 more entertaining to watch and BW is dead outside of Korea so you cant really see anything better than SC2 right now. Yes SC2 is shit compared to BW from a spectating point right now but Is there anything else better to watch than SC2 outside of Korea? NO. Why would the average korean wanna waste his time watching SC2 when its actually not on TV and BW is more entertaing to watch? Here is your answer. NEW doesnt beat BETTER even if its artifically pumped with Blizzards help with the huge tourney $$ awards. This can only attracts players for a short period of time but never an audience.
Agreed. If it weren't for the occasional Iccup tournament stream, even I would watch a bit of sc2 here and there.
|
we dont need korea for sc2 to "survive".
but having followed bw for years its a usual thing that everyone looks at korea and everythings perfect there. if this wasnt the case for sc2 (and it seems like it isnt) then sc2 may be a huge step backwards in that regard.
but i still believe sc2 has to grow before its big, just like every other thing. look at the usa, their economy isnt healthy just because they have $
|
On January 09 2011 06:31 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote: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.
im sorry, but that is just a perfect example of a typical hopelessly nostalgic BW fanboy post. are you seriously suggesting that BW was perfect in terms of its mechanics? Dragoon ramp navigation, scarab duds...is there seriously nothing at all that you can think of from BW that could be better?
Strict BW fans can easily argue that BW mechanics take more skill than SC2, I completely agree with that point now. But none of them can convincingly, rationally come up with a reason as to why BW mechanics are better than SC2's. Its like trying to argue why hip hop is better than metal. Both are such prominent genres that most arguments that are brought up are entirely subjective.
So can you rationally come up with a decent reason as to WHY broodwars is the quintessential "perfection of mechanics"? Why is WC2 not the best form of mechanics? BW fans seem to love to use the difficulty factor as the reason as to why BW>SC2. So how is WC2 not better than BW? You are too obsessed with BW to see that your opinion as to why BW (and not WC2 or SC2) is perfect is based entirely on the fact that you spent the past 10 years being devoted to BW rather than WC2 or SC2.
|
Its not that Korea needs SC2 but that BLIZZARD needs Korea to like SC2 like BW and cash in with the big $$ and thats why we have the huge adertisments and the GLS tourneys sponsored by BLIZZARD. But its not going acording to plan for now. Blizzard doesnt care about the rest of the world really when they were expecting 50++% of the profit to come from Korea only comparing it with BW sales.
So I'm guessing you just completely pulled all that out of your ass? Blizzard doesn't need Korea, or eSports. They make money by selling copies of their game. What they make off eSports is so insignificant that is why they don't care more about eSports. Sure they want the game to be big in Korea it's MORE money. But SC/BW were huge before they got big in Korea that just made it even bigger. Blizzard cashed in when they sold 3 million copies of the SC2 in like 1 month.
How can you say Blizzard sponsors the GSL and has huge advertisements? There is hardly anything on their website, or the SC2 news about the GSL. Blizzards support of the GSL is average at best, and they are certainly not going out of their way to promote it.
They'll cash in again with each of the 2 expansions and milk it for all it's worth. If Blizzard needed Korea/eSports so bad they'd be running their own tournaments and leagues, and we'd be getting the GSL thrown in our face everytime we log into b.net. They just want to sell copies of the game, in the end that is all they care about the rest is just a bonus.
|
every new RTS in the west will do good. because people will just switch over because its the new one. so there is no point.
|
I think this whole thread and any thread on this subject is overblown.
Content, content, content, and you can't have a huge prize pool in a huge tournament every single month and still act like it's special. So people loose interest when it seems like the game is just boring and repetitive. The NFL doesn't have a superbowl every month.
So just relax, they have to figure out a format that makes the games mean enough to watch them. Maybe the fact the BW wasn't an instant success is just a sign here that SC2 can't be an esport instantly, it has to develop. No big deal, no reason to freak out.
|
On January 09 2011 08:07 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 06:31 etheovermind wrote:On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote: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. im sorry, but that is just a perfect example of a typical hopelessly nostalgic BW fanboy post. are you seriously suggesting that BW was perfect in terms of its mechanics? Dragoon ramp navigation, scarab duds...is there seriously nothing at all that you can think of from BW that could be better? Strict BW fans can easily argue that BW mechanics take more skill than SC2, I completely agree with that point now. But none of them can convincingly, rationally come up with a reason as to why BW mechanics are better than SC2's. Its like trying to argue why hip hop is better than metal. Both are such prominent genres that most arguments that are brought up are entirely subjective. So can you rationally come up with a decent reason as to WHY broodwars is the quintessential "perfection of mechanics"? Why is WC2 not the best form of mechanics? BW fans seem to love to use the difficulty factor as the reason as to why BW>SC2. So how is WC2 not better than BW? You are too obsessed with BW to see that your opinion as to why BW (and not WC2 or SC2) is perfect is based entirely on the fact that you spent the past 10 years being devoted to BW rather than WC2 or SC2.
check my post history. Iv played sc2 as long as anyone has on this site meaning since release. I switched to BW and think it was a valid decision because BW is more popular overall, has a bigger and more interesting scene, is more fun to watch, and more fun to play.
|
|
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:07 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 06:31 etheovermind wrote:On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote: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. im sorry, but that is just a perfect example of a typical hopelessly nostalgic BW fanboy post. are you seriously suggesting that BW was perfect in terms of its mechanics? Dragoon ramp navigation, scarab duds...is there seriously nothing at all that you can think of from BW that could be better? Strict BW fans can easily argue that BW mechanics take more skill than SC2, I completely agree with that point now. But none of them can convincingly, rationally come up with a reason as to why BW mechanics are better than SC2's. Its like trying to argue why hip hop is better than metal. Both are such prominent genres that most arguments that are brought up are entirely subjective. So can you rationally come up with a decent reason as to WHY broodwars is the quintessential "perfection of mechanics"? Why is WC2 not the best form of mechanics? BW fans seem to love to use the difficulty factor as the reason as to why BW>SC2. So how is WC2 not better than BW? You are too obsessed with BW to see that your opinion as to why BW (and not WC2 or SC2) is perfect is based entirely on the fact that you spent the past 10 years being devoted to BW rather than WC2 or SC2.
BW was not perfect, part of its excitement comes from the terrible unpredictible scarab AI. However you can not deny that it is mechanically MUCH more demanding then SC2. The reason we find these mechanics so important is that it splits the good from the godtier. Someone who can micro like a boss and keep his macro up with inherent dificult mechanics is incredibly good.
Bw mechanics are not better then SC2, they are more demanding hence they require more ''skill'', APM and multitasking then SC2. If you watch a FPVOD of Flash or any other high level pro-gamer it is incredibly impressive, whereas SC2 is just hotkey all stuff to 1 key and press A or Z or w/e keybinding. That is not to say that it should go back to 12group and 1 building select, but it does make the skillgap much larger. People have stated that popularity has to do with the player, those players (Jaedong,Flash,Stork,Bisu etc) are virtually untouchable by B teamers. And guess what, we like that, we like the players. Because these players are so much better then the rest, whereas in SC2 the skill gap between pro and diamond players is very small. Hence why people don't get to attached to the players and SC2, there are no godtier players(yet). This is a problem which can hopefully be saved by time, but only if in the expansions new units come out which are mechanicly demanding imo.
|
On January 09 2011 07:00 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 06:42 Cofo wrote:On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote: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? This this this. It's pretty obvious that it's easier to make units do what you want in SC2, but really, how else do you want it? All it is is an unfortunate side effect of improved technology. Should Blizzard really make unit patching stupider intentionally? I think the effects of better technology is definitely unfortunate, but I can't really see it any other way. This is exactly there is so much whining regards SC2's difficulty. The game is as difficult as its predecessor at its core, but things like MBS and auto-mine are really needed to free up the unnecessary load for multitasking. Yes, clicking 8 buildings and making 8 different units in 2-3 seconds is amazing, but why is it really a "skill"? It is just practice, there's nothing amazing about it. A monkey could also do that if you replace gateways with big boxes with smaller boxes in them to click for. It isn't really skill, and I'm glad the game is easier in that sense. David Gilmour is probably nothing in terms of speed compared to Yngwie Malmsteen, but with each note David Gilmour gives much more emotion. Shredding your ass off means very little in music.
We call that Macro in BW
|
On January 09 2011 08:07 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 06:31 etheovermind wrote:On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote: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. im sorry, but that is just a perfect example of a typical hopelessly nostalgic BW fanboy post. are you seriously suggesting that BW was perfect in terms of its mechanics? Dragoon ramp navigation, scarab duds...is there seriously nothing at all that you can think of from BW that could be better? Strict BW fans can easily argue that BW mechanics take more skill than SC2, I completely agree with that point now. But none of them can convincingly, rationally come up with a reason as to why BW mechanics are better than SC2's. Its like trying to argue why hip hop is better than metal. Both are such prominent genres that most arguments that are brought up are entirely subjective. So can you rationally come up with a decent reason as to WHY broodwars is the quintessential "perfection of mechanics"? Why is WC2 not the best form of mechanics? BW fans seem to love to use the difficulty factor as the reason as to why BW>SC2. So how is WC2 not better than BW? You are too obsessed with BW to see that your opinion as to why BW (and not WC2 or SC2) is perfect is based entirely on the fact that you spent the past 10 years being devoted to BW rather than WC2 or SC2.
That right there is exactly what I think, put into better words than I ever could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
