|
On January 10 2011 02:00 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 01:16 oneofthem 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. the idea here is that each unit's use experience is in itself a part of what constitutes game content. the way dragoons are so STUPID in bw can actually make playing with that unit fun, over and beyond the intended design of the unit. even though sc2 stalkers are smarter and comes with an active spell, dragoon in a sense has more content because the difference in effectiveness between micro'd and unmicro'd units is larger for goons than it is for stalkers on many occasions, and the difference is more visible for competitive play. Blink micro is equally amazing imo. I think the point you're trying to make is that things like Blink is the product of a design philosophy, which means that it feels artificial, but fighting with a unit's retarded AI to pull of amazing stuff feels more natural. However, consider this: You are making a brand new game. With improved resources and technology. Why would devs intentionally create retarded AI for the purpose of creating an e-sport out of it? It doesn't make sense, it is against common logic. What they would rather do (and what they did) is to add things into the game with those additional resources and brainstorming, like Blink or ability to hop up and down into cliffs with special units. For example spreading creep, it is an amazing idea. I can't think Zerg without it, or Toss without Warpgates, they both make the game really interesting. You can be anywhere, any time, and create your own terrain for your advantage. True, it also makes all-ins like 4-gate possible, but perhaps mutalisk stacking in BW (for the record I don't know too much about the game's history so correct me if I'm wrong) could be considered an abuse of game mechanics , perhaps it wasn't intended in the original design, if you think that way, one of them abuses warpgate flexibility, which I don't think was intended to reinforce right at the ramp of your opponent but to make Toss macro interesting, and other abuses the game engine. One of them requires huge APM and other does not. The issue is here: If both are the results of an unintended perspective that devs did not intend for while making the game , why does it matter if it takes 300APM or 50 APM to make use of?
This is how humans brain work.
Have you ever wonder why people are more impressed by a drawing of something rather than a photo even though the drawing takes much more time and is less accurate ?
Arts and vanity.
|
On January 10 2011 01:27 oneofthem wrote:
i'm sure muta micro was considered abuse when it first got invented. the history of that little bug can be illustrative when we consider the proper approach to balance patching.
the question is, do you patch the "bug" and return the game balance to its previous ideals, or do you allow that to play out and balance the aftermath, after judging that the bug is a good part of game content?
there are different rewards and risks associated with each. the high demand for balance from players can actually contribute to decreased interesting content because it increases the risk of letting the bug play out. players have to take things less seriously and have fun with the bugs of the game, and that spirit was what made bw fun for me. but i dunno about sc2 people. :/
Here is a list of BW builds in recent years that seem "bugged" one way or the other.
SK terran vs Zerg (Nada era)
*solved by practice
Muta harrass to keep opp in base into mass exp (Savior Era)
*solved by practice
Reaver + Sair vs Zerg (Na-Ral era?)
*solved by practice
2 Base Reaver -> Carrier (Stork Era?)
"This one is actually solved by 1 guy - the current Bonjwa Flash
Forge Expand -> Sair ->DT (Bisu Era)
*solved by practice
Anyone can think of other ones?
When strategies similar to these appear in SC2 (reaper), they get patched out! 
|
I completely agree with you Rickly, especially with the older brother/younger brother analogy. Truth of the matter is, SC2 is not a finished product.(As in HotS and VotL still to come) I personally believe that if there is to be a professional SC2 league with sponsored teams and players like the BW proleague, it shouldn't take place until the last expansion comes out.(But that's just my thought) Blizzard went to Korea first, because it was the Mecca of SC, and it would make sense that if they love SC, then they would love SC2...at least on paper.
|
On January 10 2011 02:16 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 01:27 oneofthem wrote:
i'm sure muta micro was considered abuse when it first got invented. the history of that little bug can be illustrative when we consider the proper approach to balance patching.
the question is, do you patch the "bug" and return the game balance to its previous ideals, or do you allow that to play out and balance the aftermath, after judging that the bug is a good part of game content?
there are different rewards and risks associated with each. the high demand for balance from players can actually contribute to decreased interesting content because it increases the risk of letting the bug play out. players have to take things less seriously and have fun with the bugs of the game, and that spirit was what made bw fun for me. but i dunno about sc2 people. :/ Here is a list of BW builds in recent years that seem "bugged" one way or the other. SK terran vs Zerg (Nada era) *solved by practice Muta harrass to keep opp in base into mass exp (Savior Era) *solved by practice Reaver + Sair vs Zerg (Na-Ral era?) *solved by practice 2 Base Reaver -> Carrier (Stork Era?) "This one is actually solved by 1 guy - the current Bonjwa Flash Forge Expand -> Sair ->DT (Bisu Era) *solved by practice Anyone can think of other ones? When strategies similar to these appear in SC2 (reaper), they get patched out!
This is so wrong. Just so mind numbingly wrong. What do a collection of random builds, none of which were anywhere close to unstoppable and some never even that popular, and some map specific builds have to do with 5 rax reaper?
|
On January 10 2011 01:27 lowkontrast wrote:
I just really have to ask, because I was not a follower of Starcraft 1 competitive gaming, but it just seems that Starcraft 2 is getting so much more exposure. A lot of my friends at school are familiar with the scene, even with ones who don't even game on PC. However, before Starcraft 2, no one really knew what Starcraft was.
Maybe it's just Korea that isn't accepting Starcraft 2 well? If so, can't Blizzard get Europeans to host the GSL? Look at the huge response Dreamhack got. Plus it had free HD streaming, lol.
You probably live on the countryside or something, like 99% of every young male knew of Starcraft Brood War.... and a great deal of them knew of the competetive aspect in Korea, to some level.
|
Why not go back to having only 12 units in a control group? I feel this is why everyone just builds a maxed army because if every unit can be in one control group its easy to control and at that point if ur unit comp is better u win. With only 12 units in a control group it makes having separate and multi attacks better because there is not a chance of huge ball of units stomping you out. I might be wrong but it is a thought...
|
On January 10 2011 02:21 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 02:16 mmdmmd wrote:On January 10 2011 01:27 oneofthem wrote:
i'm sure muta micro was considered abuse when it first got invented. the history of that little bug can be illustrative when we consider the proper approach to balance patching.
the question is, do you patch the "bug" and return the game balance to its previous ideals, or do you allow that to play out and balance the aftermath, after judging that the bug is a good part of game content?
there are different rewards and risks associated with each. the high demand for balance from players can actually contribute to decreased interesting content because it increases the risk of letting the bug play out. players have to take things less seriously and have fun with the bugs of the game, and that spirit was what made bw fun for me. but i dunno about sc2 people. :/ Here is a list of BW builds in recent years that seem "bugged" one way or the other. SK terran vs Zerg (Nada era) *solved by practice Muta harrass to keep opp in base into mass exp (Savior Era) *solved by practice Reaver + Sair vs Zerg (Na-Ral era?) *solved by practice 2 Base Reaver -> Carrier (Stork Era?) "This one is actually solved by 1 guy - the current Bonjwa Flash Forge Expand -> Sair ->DT (Bisu Era) *solved by practice Anyone can think of other ones? When strategies similar to these appear in SC2 (reaper), they get patched out! This is so wrong. Just so mind numbingly wrong. What do a collection of random builds, none of which were anywhere close to unstoppable and some never even that popular, and some map specific builds have to do with 5 rax reaper?
They do seem unstoppable during their era. At least that's how I remember them as a spectator.
|
The only one of those strats I saw during their eras was the 2 base reaver to carrier, especially on Katrina. It really seemed broken, but a great deal was the map Katrina.
It was really amazing how Flash could come up with such a great counter to a strategy that killed terrans left and right and no one knew what to do.
|
On January 10 2011 02:25 opdomo wrote:
Why not go back to having only 12 units in a control group? I feel this is why everyone just builds a maxed army because if every unit can be in one control group its easy to control and at that point if ur unit comp is better u win. With only 12 units in a control group it makes having separate and multi attacks better because there is not a chance of huge ball of units stomping you out. I might be wrong but it is a thought...
Some cap (maybe a bit higher, 12 was kind of low) would actually improve the game.
But as time goes forward, I think more and more people will avoid keeping everything on 1. I'm sure a lot of people do it even now. I do it, for example.
|
On January 10 2011 02:28 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 02:25 opdomo wrote:
Why not go back to having only 12 units in a control group? I feel this is why everyone just builds a maxed army because if every unit can be in one control group its easy to control and at that point if ur unit comp is better u win. With only 12 units in a control group it makes having separate and multi attacks better because there is not a chance of huge ball of units stomping you out. I might be wrong but it is a thought... Some cap (maybe a bit higher, 12 was kind of low) would actually improve the game. But as time goes forward, I think more and more people will avoid keeping everything on 1. I'm sure a lot of people do it even now. I do it, for example.
Year your right 12 is kind of low. And you will see people have their units in maybe 2 or three control groups but for marines or zerglings for instance I never see them seperated unless a drop or the marines are being split for banelings. Everything else is blob vs blob. lol
|
On January 10 2011 02:00 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 01:16 oneofthem 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. the idea here is that each unit's use experience is in itself a part of what constitutes game content. the way dragoons are so STUPID in bw can actually make playing with that unit fun, over and beyond the intended design of the unit. even though sc2 stalkers are smarter and comes with an active spell, dragoon in a sense has more content because the difference in effectiveness between micro'd and unmicro'd units is larger for goons than it is for stalkers on many occasions, and the difference is more visible for competitive play. Blink micro is equally amazing imo. I think the point you're trying to make is that things like Blink is the product of a design philosophy, which means that it feels artificial, but fighting with a unit's retarded AI to pull of amazing stuff feels more natural. However, consider this: You are making a brand new game. With improved resources and technology. Why would devs intentionally create retarded AI for the purpose of creating an e-sport out of it? It doesn't make sense, it is against common logic. What they would rather do (and what they did) is to add things into the game with those additional resources and brainstorming, like Blink or ability to hop up and down into cliffs with special units. For example spreading creep, it is an amazing idea. I can't think Zerg without it, or Toss without Warpgates, they both make the game really interesting. You can be anywhere, any time, and create your own terrain for your advantage. True, it also makes all-ins like 4-gate possible, but perhaps mutalisk stacking in BW (for the record I don't know too much about the game's history so correct me if I'm wrong) could be considered an abuse of game mechanics , perhaps it wasn't intended in the original design, if you think that way, one of them abuses warpgate flexibility, which I don't think was intended to reinforce right at the ramp of your opponent but to make Toss macro interesting, and other abuses the game engine. One of them requires huge APM and other does not. The issue is here: If both are the results of an unintended perspective that devs did not intend for while making the game , why does it matter if it takes 300APM or 50 APM to make use of?
But that is part of what made BW a special (perhaps once in a lifetime) phenomena in Korea. It was that some of these things were not intended by the developers, yet they ended up adding to the game's depth (and to the fun factor imo). In fact, I'll go as far as to say that without these bugs, BW is not as special and would not have had the same affect in Korea.
Case in point, consider the bug where a player uses a harvester to push a ground unit through a mineral patch. It is this very specific bug that partly led to the development of maps like Neo Medusa, Destination, and Ridge of Heart Break (these are maps where back door entrances to your enemy's main could be breached using this bug). However, the bug isn't trivial to perform.
Another example. Jaedong says that one of his most memorable games was a ZvZ matchup where his drone got stuck on the gas (an extremely rare bug) so he had to kill it (being 1 drone behind your enemy in this match up at this level of play is outrageously unforgiving). But with superior micro, he managed to win the game (this would be an example of BW modeling the real world, where things don't always go as planned)
I remember Tasteless or someone of similar SC stature saying that the developers never meant for BW to be played as fast as it was played by pro Koreans. In fact, the developers were pleasantly surprised that the game could even handle that level of play (300+ apm and nonsense like that).
Of course, I certainly see your point. From a developer's stand point, that would be dumb (but then again, things bugging out in BW somewhat model the real world, where things don't always go exactly as planned because some component acted in an unpredictable way).
All of these unique things (and a plethora of other factors), came together to produce the BW scene: the right game, the right time, the right place! This is why it is entirely possible that SC2 may never reach the same status as BW in terms of pro gaming (national sport, air force team, government support, etc.). Don't get me wrong though, I hope it can do this eventually.
|
On January 10 2011 02:34 Rickly wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 02:00 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 01:16 oneofthem 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. the idea here is that each unit's use experience is in itself a part of what constitutes game content. the way dragoons are so STUPID in bw can actually make playing with that unit fun, over and beyond the intended design of the unit. even though sc2 stalkers are smarter and comes with an active spell, dragoon in a sense has more content because the difference in effectiveness between micro'd and unmicro'd units is larger for goons than it is for stalkers on many occasions, and the difference is more visible for competitive play. Blink micro is equally amazing imo. I think the point you're trying to make is that things like Blink is the product of a design philosophy, which means that it feels artificial, but fighting with a unit's retarded AI to pull of amazing stuff feels more natural. However, consider this: You are making a brand new game. With improved resources and technology. Why would devs intentionally create retarded AI for the purpose of creating an e-sport out of it? It doesn't make sense, it is against common logic. What they would rather do (and what they did) is to add things into the game with those additional resources and brainstorming, like Blink or ability to hop up and down into cliffs with special units. For example spreading creep, it is an amazing idea. I can't think Zerg without it, or Toss without Warpgates, they both make the game really interesting. You can be anywhere, any time, and create your own terrain for your advantage. True, it also makes all-ins like 4-gate possible, but perhaps mutalisk stacking in BW (for the record I don't know too much about the game's history so correct me if I'm wrong) could be considered an abuse of game mechanics , perhaps it wasn't intended in the original design, if you think that way, one of them abuses warpgate flexibility, which I don't think was intended to reinforce right at the ramp of your opponent but to make Toss macro interesting, and other abuses the game engine. One of them requires huge APM and other does not. The issue is here: If both are the results of an unintended perspective that devs did not intend for while making the game , why does it matter if it takes 300APM or 50 APM to make use of? Another example. Jaedong says that one of his most memorable games was a ZvZ matchup where his drone got stuck on the gas (an extremely rare bug) so he had to kill it (being 1 drone behind your enemy in this match up at this level of play is outrageously unforgiving). But with superior micro, he managed to win the game (this would be an example of BW modeling the real world, where things don't always go as planned)
I remember that! The crowd went crazy, the caster was wondering why JD didn't request a pause, the coach was pissed. It was AMAZING!
|
On January 10 2011 02:38 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 02:34 Rickly wrote:On January 10 2011 02:00 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 01:16 oneofthem 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. the idea here is that each unit's use experience is in itself a part of what constitutes game content. the way dragoons are so STUPID in bw can actually make playing with that unit fun, over and beyond the intended design of the unit. even though sc2 stalkers are smarter and comes with an active spell, dragoon in a sense has more content because the difference in effectiveness between micro'd and unmicro'd units is larger for goons than it is for stalkers on many occasions, and the difference is more visible for competitive play. Blink micro is equally amazing imo. I think the point you're trying to make is that things like Blink is the product of a design philosophy, which means that it feels artificial, but fighting with a unit's retarded AI to pull of amazing stuff feels more natural. However, consider this: You are making a brand new game. With improved resources and technology. Why would devs intentionally create retarded AI for the purpose of creating an e-sport out of it? It doesn't make sense, it is against common logic. What they would rather do (and what they did) is to add things into the game with those additional resources and brainstorming, like Blink or ability to hop up and down into cliffs with special units. For example spreading creep, it is an amazing idea. I can't think Zerg without it, or Toss without Warpgates, they both make the game really interesting. You can be anywhere, any time, and create your own terrain for your advantage. True, it also makes all-ins like 4-gate possible, but perhaps mutalisk stacking in BW (for the record I don't know too much about the game's history so correct me if I'm wrong) could be considered an abuse of game mechanics , perhaps it wasn't intended in the original design, if you think that way, one of them abuses warpgate flexibility, which I don't think was intended to reinforce right at the ramp of your opponent but to make Toss macro interesting, and other abuses the game engine. One of them requires huge APM and other does not. The issue is here: If both are the results of an unintended perspective that devs did not intend for while making the game , why does it matter if it takes 300APM or 50 APM to make use of? Another example. Jaedong says that one of his most memorable games was a ZvZ matchup where his drone got stuck on the gas (an extremely rare bug) so he had to kill it (being 1 drone behind your enemy in this match up at this level of play is outrageously unforgiving). But with superior micro, he managed to win the game (this would be an example of BW modeling the real world, where things don't always go as planned) I remember that! The crowd went crazy, the caster was wondering why JD didn't request a pause, the coach was pissed. It was AMAZING!
Can you link it? I never actually saw this one, but it sounds INSANE!!
|
@Rickly
The thing is, as a developer, you just can't make bugs and crappy mechanics part of the game or the critics would punch it into your face. I just can't imagine anyone outside of korea or TL ( if you think about it TL is like an embassy of korea  ) be happy about a bug during a match. Games have standart this times, this is why there is automining etc. Blizz was actually clever enough to put other AMP sinks into the game (like muling or creapspread) to satisfy the ultrahuman 500+ korean pro.
|
On January 10 2011 02:10 infinity2k9 wrote:
Sorry why is blink micro amazing? Anyone can do it really and it will be in many games. Watch the Bisu dragoon micro video and compare to stalker blinking. It's arguable if cliff-walking units was ever a good idea and alongside the fact that higher ground doesn't have missed shots anymore, takes away yet another element of strategy that was in BW. Warpgates also, is it actually a good idea to have something which makes mapsize irrelevant? When that was a primary factor in the balance of a lot of maps. Wouldn't it be more skillful to make sure you have your forces in the right place at the right time rather than being able to teleport them where you like.
Again read my above post mutalisk stacking was just part of the way the engine worked. The reason why if 300 APM or 50 APM is required is important, is completely obvious; the skill gap between players and spectators, and the skill gap between the pro's themselves is what makes games impressive/interesting.
Because it is fun to watch and effective when done right. If you blink damaged stalkers constantly to back while doing other things it's amazing, if you take on a force you'd normally lose without Blink and kill it with blinking, it's amazing. That's just it.
As for warpgates, marauders kill stuff so fast that you need some of way fast reinforcing in order to protect your buildings. Not to mention protoss units are damn slow.
If you sit and practice something for hours you are going to do it. Pros actually do that. If there are huge gaps between two players, it would be boring to watch, the best would just roll over everyone and at first it would seem cool as how the winner is so amazing, but after a while you'd get bored.
|
On January 10 2011 02:42 Rickly wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 02:38 mmdmmd wrote:On January 10 2011 02:34 Rickly wrote:On January 10 2011 02:00 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 01:16 oneofthem 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. the idea here is that each unit's use experience is in itself a part of what constitutes game content. the way dragoons are so STUPID in bw can actually make playing with that unit fun, over and beyond the intended design of the unit. even though sc2 stalkers are smarter and comes with an active spell, dragoon in a sense has more content because the difference in effectiveness between micro'd and unmicro'd units is larger for goons than it is for stalkers on many occasions, and the difference is more visible for competitive play. Blink micro is equally amazing imo. I think the point you're trying to make is that things like Blink is the product of a design philosophy, which means that it feels artificial, but fighting with a unit's retarded AI to pull of amazing stuff feels more natural. However, consider this: You are making a brand new game. With improved resources and technology. Why would devs intentionally create retarded AI for the purpose of creating an e-sport out of it? It doesn't make sense, it is against common logic. What they would rather do (and what they did) is to add things into the game with those additional resources and brainstorming, like Blink or ability to hop up and down into cliffs with special units. For example spreading creep, it is an amazing idea. I can't think Zerg without it, or Toss without Warpgates, they both make the game really interesting. You can be anywhere, any time, and create your own terrain for your advantage. True, it also makes all-ins like 4-gate possible, but perhaps mutalisk stacking in BW (for the record I don't know too much about the game's history so correct me if I'm wrong) could be considered an abuse of game mechanics , perhaps it wasn't intended in the original design, if you think that way, one of them abuses warpgate flexibility, which I don't think was intended to reinforce right at the ramp of your opponent but to make Toss macro interesting, and other abuses the game engine. One of them requires huge APM and other does not. The issue is here: If both are the results of an unintended perspective that devs did not intend for while making the game , why does it matter if it takes 300APM or 50 APM to make use of? Another example. Jaedong says that one of his most memorable games was a ZvZ matchup where his drone got stuck on the gas (an extremely rare bug) so he had to kill it (being 1 drone behind your enemy in this match up at this level of play is outrageously unforgiving). But with superior micro, he managed to win the game (this would be an example of BW modeling the real world, where things don't always go as planned) I remember that! The crowd went crazy, the caster was wondering why JD didn't request a pause, the coach was pissed. It was AMAZING! Can you link it? I never actually saw this one, but it sounds INSANE!!
http://channel.pandora.tv/channel/video.ptv?ref=google&redirect=prg&ch_userid=panstar&prgid=6236633&categid=
|
On January 10 2011 02:34 Rickly wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 02:00 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 01:16 oneofthem 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. the idea here is that each unit's use experience is in itself a part of what constitutes game content. the way dragoons are so STUPID in bw can actually make playing with that unit fun, over and beyond the intended design of the unit. even though sc2 stalkers are smarter and comes with an active spell, dragoon in a sense has more content because the difference in effectiveness between micro'd and unmicro'd units is larger for goons than it is for stalkers on many occasions, and the difference is more visible for competitive play. Blink micro is equally amazing imo. I think the point you're trying to make is that things like Blink is the product of a design philosophy, which means that it feels artificial, but fighting with a unit's retarded AI to pull of amazing stuff feels more natural. However, consider this: You are making a brand new game. With improved resources and technology. Why would devs intentionally create retarded AI for the purpose of creating an e-sport out of it? It doesn't make sense, it is against common logic. What they would rather do (and what they did) is to add things into the game with those additional resources and brainstorming, like Blink or ability to hop up and down into cliffs with special units. For example spreading creep, it is an amazing idea. I can't think Zerg without it, or Toss without Warpgates, they both make the game really interesting. You can be anywhere, any time, and create your own terrain for your advantage. True, it also makes all-ins like 4-gate possible, but perhaps mutalisk stacking in BW (for the record I don't know too much about the game's history so correct me if I'm wrong) could be considered an abuse of game mechanics , perhaps it wasn't intended in the original design, if you think that way, one of them abuses warpgate flexibility, which I don't think was intended to reinforce right at the ramp of your opponent but to make Toss macro interesting, and other abuses the game engine. One of them requires huge APM and other does not. The issue is here: If both are the results of an unintended perspective that devs did not intend for while making the game , why does it matter if it takes 300APM or 50 APM to make use of? But that is part of what made BW a special (perhaps once in a lifetime) phenomena in Korea. It was that some of these things were not intended by the developers, yet they ended up adding to the game's depth (and to the fun factor imo). In fact, I'll go as far as to say that without these bugs, BW is not as special and would not have had the same affect in Korea. Case in point, consider the bug where a player uses a harvester to push a ground unit through a mineral patch. It is this very specific bug that partly led to the development of maps like Neo Medusa, Destination, and Ridge of Heart Break (these are maps where back door entrances to your enemy's main could be breached using this bug). However, the bug isn't trivial to perform. Another example. Jaedong says that one of his most memorable games was a ZvZ matchup where his drone got stuck on the gas (an extremely rare bug) so he had to kill it (being 1 drone behind your enemy in this match up at this level of play is outrageously unforgiving). But with superior micro, he managed to win the game (this would be an example of BW modeling the real world, where things don't always go as planned) I remember Tasteless or someone of similar SC stature saying that the developers never meant for BW to be played as fast as it was played by pro Koreans. In fact, the developers were pleasantly surprised that the game could even handle that level of play (300+ apm and nonsense like that). Of course, I certainly see your point. From a developer's stand point, that would be dumb (but then again, things bugging out in BW somewhat model the real world, where things don't always go exactly as planned because some component acted in an unpredictable way). All of these unique things (and a plethora of other factors), came together to produce the BW scene: the right game, the right time, the right place! This is why it is entirely possible that SC2 may never reach the same status as BW in terms of pro gaming (national sport, air force team, government support, etc.). Don't get me wrong though, I hope it can do this eventually.
I get your point, but something you don't expect will impress you more than something that you expect. That's how human psychology works. As you pointed out, no matter how good intentions devs had while producing SC2, it might never work. In this case, why compare two games but just enjoy each of them seperately? It feels asking for things that is never going to happen and that is pointless.
If SC2 dies, I'll watch BW, but watching zerg without creep spreading is going to be not that enjoyable.
|
idk about you guys, but I feel that in general watching Starcraft II has been more enjoyable... I've watched plenty of Brood War matches in my time, and although they were great, and a lot of fun to watch, I find myself enjoying Starcraft II matches more IMO
|
I enjoyed GSL season 1 due to Fruitdealer epic games. But after that, really? I stayed up at 2AM in the morning for massive all-in games?
|
Vanilla StarCraft wasn't really all that great and it took a later expansion to really open things up. The game in two years is going to look a lot different than it does right now, and absolutely nobody here has any idea how things are going to turn out.
So if you like StarCraft 2, watch it. I enjoy the GSL games quite a bit, even though I feel like amazing players are few and far between right now and games are more of a coinflip than they were in BW. There's a lot of time for things to change and develop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
