|
On January 10 2011 02:25 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 02:21 floor exercise wrote: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.
A huge difference with these builds and the ones usually complained about in GSL are that the above are all macro unit compositions. They rely on multitask, tactics, and strategy to maximize said unit composition to win the game. The GSL games and builds people take issue with are simply rushes that brute-force the win. Unit composition changes, timing adjustments and strategy are less important when dealing with a one-dimensional all-in attack.
Practice can adjust timings, composition, and playstyle to handle SK terran. But you're pretty limited in how many options you have at holding a marine/scv all-in at the start of the game, and this leads to comparatively more boring games imo.
|
On January 09 2011 21:08 CreepCrepe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 18:42 d_so wrote:On January 09 2011 17:02 CreepCrepe wrote:
Wait, so a game where you don't have to macro at all, relies on micro and random drops for your hero will survive as an e-sport but SC2 with macro mechanics that fucking make sense won't? i think your consistent belligerence in this thread is approaching the point where you need to shut the fuck up Fucking lol. Warcraft 3 is still MASSIVE in parts of Asia, heaps of Koreans still playing. You know what's killing WC3? Starcraft 2, not Brood War.
The map scandal back when Wc3 was young killed it already in korea.
no new maps at all killed it. if wc3 would get new maps like BW did iam so sure Wc3 still would be big now in europe
|
On January 10 2011 03:13 Bleak 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? 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.
I see your point as well. And as I said in a different post, I'd rather keep open minded and just assume that I can't possibly imagine high-level SC2 play 2-5 years down the road (especially with 2 more expansions to go lol).
But. The reason I discuss it is because no matter how impossible it may seem, I still WANT SC2 to become a phenomena the way BW did (or at least as much as possible). It has so much potential left to be unlocked! SC2 won't "die" especially considering its success outside of Korea. But when it comes to a realistic model of national pro-gaming, Korean BW is where we look seeing as how they are the only ones to have done it to such an extent. It is for this reason why bringing up the imperfections as well as other aspects of BW is important (if we want to analyze how Korean BW became what it did).
Additionally, it is only natural for us to compare the two seeing as how SC2 is the sequel to BW.
Who knows, maybe (probably) there are interesting SC2 bugs yet to be discovered (if they are interesting bugs that don't break the game, then it will be interesting to see if Blizz patches them or not)!
|
On January 10 2011 03:43 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 02:25 mmdmmd wrote:On January 10 2011 02:21 floor exercise wrote: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. A huge difference with these builds and the ones usually complained about in GSL are that the above are all macro unit compositions. They rely on multitask, tactics, and strategy to maximize said unit composition to win the game. The GSL games and builds people take issue with are simply rushes that brute-force the win. Unit composition changes, timing adjustments and strategy are less important when dealing with a one-dimensional all-in attack. Practice can adjust timings, composition, and playstyle to handle SK terran. But you're pretty limited in how many options you have at holding a marine/scv all-in at the start of the game, and this leads to comparatively more boring games imo.
+1
You have much deeper understanding than me. Thanks
|
On January 10 2011 02:51 MaDBread wrote:@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.
What you said I already agreed with (I said that from a developer's stand point, dumbing the game down doesn't make sense)! I definitely like the creep spreading as it is nasty, effective, and fits well into the lore. But you have to admit that without the BW bugs, BW would not be as special.
However, being a programmer, I know that there are plenty of bugs in SC2 that we have left to discover (lol)! The problem is, what type of bugs are they (do they break the game, or make it more interesting? eg. Muta stacking may be a bug, but effectively applying its uses is proportionate to the player's skill, so it doesn't break the game) and when we find the interesting bugs, while Blizz patch them?
Yet again, it is evident that this is not a simple issue 
|
On January 10 2011 04:18 Rickly wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 03:13 Bleak 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? 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. I see your point as well. And as I said in a different post, I'd rather keep open minded and just assume that I can't possibly imagine high-level SC2 play 2-5 years down the road (especially with 2 more expansions to go lol). But. The reason I discuss it is because no matter how impossible it may seem, I still WANT SC2 to become a phenomena the way BW did (or at least as much as possible). It has so much potential left to be unlocked! SC2 won't "die" especially considering its success outside of Korea. But when it comes to a realistic model of national pro-gaming, Korean BW is where we look seeing as how they are the only ones to have done it to such an extent. It is for this reason why bringing up the imperfections as well as other aspects of BW is important (if we want to analyze how Korean BW became what it did). Additionally, it is only natural for us to compare the two seeing as how SC2 is the sequel to BW. Who knows, maybe (probably) there are interesting SC2 bugs yet to be discovered (if they are interesting bugs that don't break the game, then it will be interesting to see if Blizz patches them or not)!
Also, if SC BW appeared just because once in a full moon, when planets lined up and the ancients rose from the ocean floor where they sleep alone in darkness to bring esports to the Earth, it might mean no other game can reach the potential of BW's effect unless SC2 can do it and show that it is actually possible to do it with another game with right steps taken.
|
After a lot of observation, 2 easy problems i see holding sc2 back are the lack of team color, and the over saturated terrain, or lighting on the maps.
There is a lack of team color, mostly only for zerg(buildings especially), but this isn't really whats holding sc2 back. What i mean is the intensity of team color is too weak. I made custom textures that made the team colors much stronger and it was good. But then i realized that when i would press alt F, the team colors got soo strong that it made it hard to see. So heres the problem. If you play with alt F on like many of us do, then the game is fine in terms of team color strength. The problem is that as spectators, we dont see that, so we get less clarity than the people playing. It baffles me why blizzard would choose to make it more clear for the player and less so for the spectator. A simple solution would be to make all the regular team colors just as strong as alt F team colors. (I hate picking red as my team color and then i get a pink/red, but if I press alt F, my enemy is REAL red, not pinkish).
For those that don't know, picking red or green as ur color is not the same as pressing alt f. Alt F intensifies the green and the red making things much more clear. Also, whats up with only red and blue as team colors when you play on ladder or when you watch gsl. It pisses me off, there are other colors you know?
Another problem is the maps. Many of the current maps are too dark and give off a strange hue, and some maps have too much saturation. LT for example, its way too green and should be toned down. Our eyes focus on bright colors and it can be distracting(also makes me feel like im playing in Teletubby land). On Metalopolis, while the ground should allow for good contrast, there is a weird blue hue and darkness that can be distracting. The lighting changes should perhaps only be kept in singleplayer.
One big problem is the blob, the army balling up. I have no idea how to solve this. Even when you put ur army into different control groups, they still end up balling up. Im not sure how bw managed to avoid it. I used to think that it was because of infinite selection, but since it doesn't work with having ur army in different hotkeys, im not sure how to solve this. Maybe its the unit collision size being too small? I mean in bw, 2 zealots would completely block off a ramp remember? so maybe thats it(I hope so, because that would be an easy fix.)
|
On January 10 2011 04:37 pzea469 wrote:
One big problem is the blob, the army balling up. I have no idea how to solve this. Even when you put ur army into different control groups, they still end up balling up. Im not sure how bw managed to avoid it. I used to think that it was because of infinite selection, but since it doesn't work with having ur army in different hotkeys, im not sure how to solve this. Maybe its the unit collision size being too small? I mean in bw, 2 zealots would completely block off a ramp remember? so maybe thats it(I hope so, because that would be an easy fix.)
I don't like army blob too. But it might be intentional by design? I would like to hear Blizz explaining why they decided to do this.
|
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies.
|
On January 10 2011 04:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies.
I wonder, whether the best way way to deal with a blob is another blob? Maybe the players have to figure out, how to spread their armies in order to defeat the "blobs".
|
On January 10 2011 05:04 ProbeEtPylon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 04:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies. I wonder, whether the best way way to deal with a blob is another blob? Maybe the players have to figure out, how to spread their armies in order to defeat the "blobs".
Pincer movements? In 2v2 I try these stuff and they are surprisingly effective. We split up our forces with my partner and and then pincer the enemy big blob in. They have to split their firepower but we don't, enemy blob shatters between our armies.
|
On January 10 2011 05:06 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 05:04 ProbeEtPylon wrote:On January 10 2011 04:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies. I wonder, whether the best way way to deal with a blob is another blob? Maybe the players have to figure out, how to spread their armies in order to defeat the "blobs". Pincer movements? In 2v2 I try these stuff and they are surprisingly effective. We split up our forces with my partner and and then pincer the enemy big blob in. They have to split their firepower but we don't, enemy blob shatters between our armies.
You guys sound like your working to make sc2 better. Why not just play broodwar?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 10 2011 05:09 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 05:06 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 05:04 ProbeEtPylon wrote:On January 10 2011 04:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies. I wonder, whether the best way way to deal with a blob is another blob? Maybe the players have to figure out, how to spread their armies in order to defeat the "blobs". Pincer movements? In 2v2 I try these stuff and they are surprisingly effective. We split up our forces with my partner and and then pincer the enemy big blob in. They have to split their firepower but we don't, enemy blob shatters between our armies. You guys sound like your working to make sc2 better. Why not just play broodwar?
What is the point of this post? Trying to be funny? Sarcastic? Feeling bad because some people play other games and you can't understand that?
|
On January 10 2011 05:14 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 05:09 etheovermind wrote:On January 10 2011 05:06 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 05:04 ProbeEtPylon wrote:On January 10 2011 04:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies. I wonder, whether the best way way to deal with a blob is another blob? Maybe the players have to figure out, how to spread their armies in order to defeat the "blobs". Pincer movements? In 2v2 I try these stuff and they are surprisingly effective. We split up our forces with my partner and and then pincer the enemy big blob in. They have to split their firepower but we don't, enemy blob shatters between our armies. You guys sound like your working to make sc2 better. Why not just play broodwar? What is the point of this post? Trying to be funny? Sarcastic? Feeling bad because some people play other games and you can't understand that?
I have had the same urge to respond, but I've resisted ;-) ...
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
On January 10 2011 05:09 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 05:06 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 05:04 ProbeEtPylon wrote:On January 10 2011 04:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies. I wonder, whether the best way way to deal with a blob is another blob? Maybe the players have to figure out, how to spread their armies in order to defeat the "blobs". Pincer movements? In 2v2 I try these stuff and they are surprisingly effective. We split up our forces with my partner and and then pincer the enemy big blob in. They have to split their firepower but we don't, enemy blob shatters between our armies. You guys sound like your working to make sc2 better. Why not just play broodwar?
By your logic why try anything new in life? why dont we do the same thing we used to do?
|
On January 10 2011 05:17 fishinguy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 05:09 etheovermind wrote:On January 10 2011 05:06 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 05:04 ProbeEtPylon wrote:On January 10 2011 04:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies. I wonder, whether the best way way to deal with a blob is another blob? Maybe the players have to figure out, how to spread their armies in order to defeat the "blobs". Pincer movements? In 2v2 I try these stuff and they are surprisingly effective. We split up our forces with my partner and and then pincer the enemy big blob in. They have to split their firepower but we don't, enemy blob shatters between our armies. You guys sound like your working to make sc2 better. Why not just play broodwar? By your logic why try anything new in life? why dont we do the same thing we used to do?
If they work and are fun? Then why wouldn't you?
|
I think smart casting has to be removed, maps have to be larger, and the population for most units need to be lowered. This will make the game much more mechanically demanding, and less of a bore.
Forcefield and storm make protoss incredibly abusive and no one can really say "nice xspell" without cringing because of how easily spells are to actually cast and land with smart casting. I remember a video with sen, first game he ever plays as protoss and it's a pvz on ladder, so it isn't some bad player he's playing against. All he does is make sentries and blink stalkers and smart cast 20 forcefields to make the whole army of zerg useless while he takes out an expansion and half the food of the zerg while laughing and pointing to the screen and asking gretorp "how can i win in this matchup when protoss can do this"? PvT mid and lategame with lots of sentries and/or HT is pretty much the same joke.
1 base all in's are too powerful and not interesting to watch, and games that go into mid games are usually decided by two larger 1aing armies because no one has more than 2 running bases at a time because armies are too easily maxed out, and expansions are too easily taken, and the expansions path on every map is extremely linear.
|
On January 10 2011 05:18 etheovermind wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 05:17 fishinguy wrote:On January 10 2011 05:09 etheovermind wrote:On January 10 2011 05:06 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 05:04 ProbeEtPylon wrote:On January 10 2011 04:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies. I wonder, whether the best way way to deal with a blob is another blob? Maybe the players have to figure out, how to spread their armies in order to defeat the "blobs". Pincer movements? In 2v2 I try these stuff and they are surprisingly effective. We split up our forces with my partner and and then pincer the enemy big blob in. They have to split their firepower but we don't, enemy blob shatters between our armies. You guys sound like your working to make sc2 better. Why not just play broodwar? By your logic why try anything new in life? why dont we do the same thing we used to do? If they work and are fun? Then why wouldn't you?
Two words:
Personal preference.
|
On January 10 2011 05:31 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2011 05:18 etheovermind wrote:On January 10 2011 05:17 fishinguy wrote:On January 10 2011 05:09 etheovermind wrote:On January 10 2011 05:06 Bleak wrote:On January 10 2011 05:04 ProbeEtPylon wrote:On January 10 2011 04:47 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Yup I don't like the army blob either. It's annoying and you have to split up your forces... idk, i just feel it was cooler back in BW (i know the screen was smaller too) where a huge battle might span like 2 widths of your screen, with a huge frontline and you constantly pumping out more units to try to reinforce. These were the epic battles. 1 blob vs 1 blob is quite boring. I also don't like how they clump together so much, but if they change the colission size many many things will differ, like psy storm, splash, forcefield, etc, balance of different armies. I wonder, whether the best way way to deal with a blob is another blob? Maybe the players have to figure out, how to spread their armies in order to defeat the "blobs". Pincer movements? In 2v2 I try these stuff and they are surprisingly effective. We split up our forces with my partner and and then pincer the enemy big blob in. They have to split their firepower but we don't, enemy blob shatters between our armies. You guys sound like your working to make sc2 better. Why not just play broodwar? By your logic why try anything new in life? why dont we do the same thing we used to do? If they work and are fun? Then why wouldn't you? Two words: Personal preference.
Good answer
|
There are 20k people watching SC2 on TL right now. I don't think we need to worry about popularity, at least in English speaking countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
