On November 23 2011 18:06 haflo wrote: Whats up with BW fans , and their special need to come to SC2 forums and whine about something that is less good then BW.
If you going to get one thing from this post take this Giving an example does not prove the rule never ever ,that is very stupid thing to do.
given: passive TvT - rain vs boxer counter: Active TvT - MvP vs MMA
given: passive PVt - socke counter: sage / hero
i can do it with Z players as well... with ease
what does it tell me ? more about the style of the players then anything else for now...
why the hell do you link games for BW ? i find tennis quite boring personally , but i can link you from the last 10 years some very interesting games, does it say anything about tennis as a game as a spectator sport for me ?
I think this thread belong with the - "SC2 can never go more then one base" , "Sc2 has very low ceiling - everyone will cap it in half a year" , "SC2 have no micro , AI is too good" "In SC2 everyone will have perfect macro - its too easy!" "I need my units to be unable to go from A to B without babysit each and every one of them , and UI and control and graphics which belong to the stone age in order for a game to it to be any good ,fuck blizzard!" And i have one common though about those threads today - very stupid statements.
If you cannot enjoy SC2 i personally feel truly sorry for you , its a beautiful game and getting better repeatedly I wish BW will be there forever for you , but please less silly threads ...
really i would think that BW will have the most patience and brains to give SC2 its time to grow , but i guess its too hard to expect it from nostalgia vision people to actually see the progress and know that as BW grew , so will SC2. and its very silly to expect sc2 meta game to be at bw level at this age ...
And i think the huge amount of spectators and fans is really the only proof you need that SC2 has great potential and produce some beautiful games.
It's like saying okay that xxxxx sport is good because every one's playing that game because there is a lot of people ? Point taken maybe that's your standard of what is a good sport is , However for me , I am going on the basis what's my standard and you many not like it and that doesn't mean that everyone has to follow what the majority does just because it's liked by many people . Twilight for example.
I think curling is a terrible sport and I don't enjoy it. Should I now go to broomliquid.net and tell them I think curling sucks, and if people like it it's because they have no taste, just like Twilight fans?
On November 23 2011 18:50 JieXian wrote: TLDR : The people who have spent a lot of time with both games know when one feels inferior. It's not that they want it to be that way. I'm sure everyone wants sc2 to be a success, I'd have embraced BW dying and sc2 taking over. But not when SC2 turns out to be like this.
SC2 is a resounding success.
Please stop posting "SC2 is inferior" on the SC2 forums. It's really, really annoying and counterproductive.
Success has nothing to do with inferior/superior.
BW was a resounding success too. It averaged 9/10 in all game reviews, got game of the year in nearly all magazines (the expansion did as well) and sold 11 million copies. The best players are earning up to 400,000 USD a year.
What about SC2, less than 3 mill sold?, that's less than 1/3rd, and how much do the players earn. We don't know how long sc2 will be popular as an esport or as a game. Of course, we should give it time, but you are jumping the gun a bit. Pure stats alone, BW trumps it.
I will call SC2 a resounding success when I see new people still buying the game 10 years after the last expansion.
Wouldn't that mean you'd have to wait 20 years to call it?
On November 23 2011 19:05 YyapSsap wrote: Basically due to the severely weakened defensive units like tanks and no defenders advantage e.g cliff, along with severely enhanced harassing options, the whole death ball syndrome will not end. Players have NO incentive to split up their units because in SC2 there is hardly any situations where a small amount of units can defend their position or even buy some time against the onslaught of the full enemy army. If they could, then we would see multiple armies with a core army fighting across the map. BW makes this happen, where its successor SC2 does not. The need for so many workers + high supply count doesn't make this help either (im guessing this is mainly due to dumbing down the game + making it easy for alot of computers i.e lowering requirements).
Is this a typo? If not, could you elaborate on why enhanced harassment options encourages deathballs?
Everytime I see this kind of thread pop up, I die a little inside. It's just sad to see that nobody seems to realize how bad BW gameplay was in it's earliest days and how far it has come in the last 12 years. The players and the gameplay are still in their developing phase, but if you have watched some of the recent games (which I think not many people in this thread did), you see a movement towards much more active games, especially on maps like daybreak. I agree that the maps play a large factor in how action-packed the games will turn out, as they did in bw, but it's not all to blame on that. The highest level of SC2 play right now isn't even remotely close to what it could be. It's too early to give any predictions for SC2. What you do is judging a baby.
I don't think huge changes are needed, really. Protoss and Zerg armies just need to be able to control space better / have a stronger defenders advantage.
On November 23 2011 18:06 haflo wrote: Whats up with BW fans , and their special need to come to SC2 forums and whine about something that is less good then BW.
If you going to get one thing from this post take this Giving an example does not prove the rule never ever ,that is very stupid thing to do.
given: passive TvT - rain vs boxer counter: Active TvT - MvP vs MMA
given: passive PVt - socke counter: sage / hero
i can do it with Z players as well... with ease
what does it tell me ? more about the style of the players then anything else for now...
why the hell do you link games for BW ? i find tennis quite boring personally , but i can link you from the last 10 years some very interesting games, does it say anything about tennis as a game as a spectator sport for me ?
I think this thread belong with the - "SC2 can never go more then one base" , "Sc2 has very low ceiling - everyone will cap it in half a year" , "SC2 have no micro , AI is too good" "In SC2 everyone will have perfect macro - its too easy!" "I need my units to be unable to go from A to B without babysit each and every one of them , and UI and control and graphics which belong to the stone age in order for a game to it to be any good ,fuck blizzard!" And i have one common though about those threads today - very stupid statements.
If you cannot enjoy SC2 i personally feel truly sorry for you , its a beautiful game and getting better repeatedly I wish BW will be there forever for you , but please less silly threads ...
really i would think that BW will have the most patience and brains to give SC2 its time to grow , but i guess its too hard to expect it from nostalgia vision people to actually see the progress and know that as BW grew , so will SC2. and its very silly to expect sc2 meta game to be at bw level at this age ...
And i think the huge amount of spectators and fans is really the only proof you need that SC2 has great potential and produce some beautiful games.
It's like saying okay that xxxxx sport is good because every one's playing that game because there is a lot of people ? Point taken maybe that's your standard of what is a good sport is , However for me , I am going on the basis what's my standard and you many not like it and that doesn't mean that everyone has to follow what the majority does just because it's liked by many people . Twilight for example.
I think curling is a terrible sport and I don't enjoy it. Should I now go to broomliquid.net and tell them I think curling sucks, and if people like it it's because they have no taste, just like Twilight fans?
On November 23 2011 18:50 JieXian wrote: TLDR : The people who have spent a lot of time with both games know when one feels inferior. It's not that they want it to be that way. I'm sure everyone wants sc2 to be a success, I'd have embraced BW dying and sc2 taking over. But not when SC2 turns out to be like this.
SC2 is a resounding success.
Please stop posting "SC2 is inferior" on the SC2 forums. It's really, really annoying and counterproductive.
Success has nothing to do with inferior/superior.
Notice the paragraph break between saying "SC2 is a resounding success" and "stop calling SC2 inferior".
Those are in fact two separate responses to the person I quoted.
As to your other points, I am not talking about units sold. I am talking about SC2 as an esport in the west.
EDIT: I realize that Brood War is/was bigger in Korea, but honestly I don't give a crap about Korea. There were zero Brood War professional foreigners who could actually live off their winnings and salaries. Western BW spectators were stuck watching VODs from Korea, because other than WCG, there were no big tournaments. Starcraft 2 has changed all of that, and for me that is what's relevant. There's a major SC2 event being broadcast in English nearly every weekend.
It all comes down to the pathing. As people have said making defense more powerful would improve things, but how do you do that? One way is with spells like forcefield and dark swarm, but is that really a solution you want to see? The other obvious way is to make aoe attacks more powerful so a few units in a good position can hold off an entire army, but that won't really work for various reasons. Consider mines in BW: they did 125 damage and were basically free. A really good mine hit could kill maybe 8 units at once. Compare that to baneling mines in SC2. A well timed baneling hit can kill 20 marines in an instant. BW level aoe damage would completely erase SC2 armies because of how they clump up. It's basically impossible to make defense better without removing unit clumping, and Blizzard is dead set against that. Unless you're waiting for Dustin Browder to hit his head and get amnesia waiting is not going to fix this problem.
On November 23 2011 13:21 Praetorial wrote: This is a BW vs SC2 thread. There is little need to compare the two or suggest that one is superior to the other.
This is a completely ridiculous idea. Every RTS that's come out in the last decade has been compared with BW. Why should SC2 get a pass? The fact that SC2 is supposed to be the successor for BW makes in-depth comparison even more important.
The "game is still new" argument is stupid too. If the game isn't developed enough then why don't we just keep watching BW until SC2 is ready to take its place? Unless your kid is playing it doesn't make sense to watch middle schoolers play basketball when you could be watching the NBA. I'm really tired of hearing these excuses that don't even make sense. People just want to shut discussion down because their afraid their game will come out looking bad.
Remove forcefield, concussive shell, and fungal growth so that you can poke and leave if the timming wasn't good. In SC2, if you go into a fight you shouldnt take,you lose, that's it. So, ppl are affraid and they just macro, hoping having a better macro than opponent.
Sc2 is too volatile, and minor mistakes can cost you the game, which ,in turn gives, advantage to passive play... just wait for the opponent to make a mistake, never commit while keeping your macro going and you will eventually win.
I think that's why some players go for the all-in mode, they must say :" wth every time i try to play solid and perfect, eventually will make 1 mistake and either be at an unrecoverable disadvantage or have to go all-in, better go stright for the all in now "
On November 23 2011 14:33 raf3776 wrote: Im sure i could find examples of a random early Sc1 game that doesnt have that much aggression compared to a random game in sc2
Please do.
<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-1540187220819592210&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed> There you go. Stork vs Nada from the 2007 proleague. I didn't really pick this game at random, as I chose it because the calibre of the players illustrates that SC1 can be just as boring as SC2 at the highest level. It's really easy to dig up examples =/
I don't really see the point of this though. Aren't we talking about general tendencies in games?
I go to barcrafts sometimes, and they are interesting (Random SC2). However I can just open up a BW stream (even from some random C+ player) and find it exciting for the most part.
I know this logic is hated, but the fundamental BW mechanics and strategies are so deeply worked out that a C+ player today in BW could have been Pro-level during the first year of the game. A while many concepts do carry over to SC2, the big picture is different enough that players do not yet need to break the game down a tightly as BW in order to do really well. Even pro's are still figuring out and developing the kind of high level muscle memory macro that is needed to support to the crisp micro play your expecting. For those who have watched SC for ages, becoming accustom to the current state of BW as the average is underselling BW and setting an unrealistic expectation for SC2.
In all likelihood, BW is probably "better" for spectators in the most general of RTS terms, but SC2 has not yet shown the full array of skills it can support. The pressure isn't there yet for pros to need those skills. You can get damn far in amny tournaments with damn good macro and questionable micro still. The same cant be said with BW.
How is it unrealistic to expect a successor of starcraft broodwar to be as good as the old game broodwar which did provide countless joy and fun to many of us who are fans of the original sc1 and broodwar ? It's pretty simple you for example you are a top scholar in your university and you have been producing good grades and so , than suddenly you have been producing quite low grades and almost failed your semester . People who have known you for years will question your actions , what has happen to you , what's wrong , these is the same thing as for sc2 . The analogy do apply in these situation because of expectation of previous high benchmark and entertaining factor from broodwar despite it's simplicity and like you said , Figured out mechanics .
Its not unrealistic to expect the game will eventually be as good as BW, but it is unrealistic to expect it to immediately be as good as BW.
This has been talked to death but SC2 is a new game and players need time to adapt and then provide a consistent enough challenge to one another to necessitate the development of SC2 versions of the subtle BW strategies that people love so much.
Using your example, the first student goes through university with amazing grades, and comes hope telling his little brother about what he learned, then the little brother goes to university and doesn't do as well. Two different people, with different but perhaps similar skill sets, that need to develop at their own pace and methodology. Certain things will be easier for the little brother because of what he was told, but other maybe not be useful or possible because while the older brother kicked ass at geology, the little brother is more adept at meteorology...or something.
I was using a single established scholar for that example and not two .
I know, and I was pointing out the flaw in the usage of a single established scholar as a metaphor for two different games.
On November 23 2011 14:33 raf3776 wrote: Im sure i could find examples of a random early Sc1 game that doesnt have that much aggression compared to a random game in sc2
Please do.
<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-1540187220819592210&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed> There you go. Stork vs Nada from the 2007 proleague. I didn't really pick this game at random, as I chose it because the calibre of the players illustrates that SC1 can be just as boring as SC2 at the highest level. It's really easy to dig up examples =/
I don't really see the point of this though. Aren't we talking about general tendencies in games?
I go to barcrafts sometimes, and they are interesting (Random SC2). However I can just open up a BW stream (even from some random C+ player) and find it exciting for the most part.
I know this logic is hated, but the fundamental BW mechanics and strategies are so deeply worked out that a C+ player today in BW could have been Pro-level during the first year of the game. A while many concepts do carry over to SC2, the big picture is different enough that players do not yet need to break the game down a tightly as BW in order to do really well. Even pro's are still figuring out and developing the kind of high level muscle memory macro that is needed to support to the crisp micro play your expecting. For those who have watched SC for ages, becoming accustom to the current state of BW as the average is underselling BW and setting an unrealistic expectation for SC2.
In all likelihood, BW is probably "better" for spectators in the most general of RTS terms, but SC2 has not yet shown the full array of skills it can support. The pressure isn't there yet for pros to need those skills. You can get damn far in amny tournaments with damn good macro and questionable micro still. The same cant be said with BW.
I kinda agree and disagree. I disagree with the mechanics part for obvious reasons, its not a valid point because basic mechanics have nothing to do with creating exciting battles, it does have a lot to do with skill differentiation, comebacks, and certain tactics however. The second point being that we have 818 apm JulyZerg moving straight into SC2, there were no mechanical monsters pre BW. I agree in that mechanics have dropped down a bit and strategies are less worked out, however this also doesn't affect how games play out that much.
However I'd say a lot of new strategies aren't being developed because of culture as well. Just look at the top foreigners in BW, they were highly creative in comparison to the Koreans. Strategic play is under-valued in Korean Starcraft, and its obvious when a rookie such as Reality played strategic against Titans like Jaedong, Jaedong played like a D rank scrub. Or even look at Jangbi's OSL run.
Now we are getting the clashes of two cultures together, and don't forget the constant patching is also changing the game the way its played a lot. I could imagine if Blizzard never patched, and we only had the GSL, that things would be a lot more stagnant. Its tantamount to BW's game design, that even when the same strategies are being used, it still produces sick games more than 10 years from its inception.
A lot of it has to do with what ver said, I could go further to say there is also a problem with single-role (hence gimmicky) units. You shouldn't need 10 vikings for the sole purpose of taking down colossus, what other purpose does making that many vikings serve? What's worse is that if you decide to do a drop with them, you have to use them all because of warp-in, and if you lose them, you lose the game because you can't snipe colossus.
Lets look at a similar scenario. SKTerran vs Zerg, requires a lot of science vessels to control lurker/defiler/ultra numbers. Already I can use this unit against 3 other units in a normal army comp (I don't include guardians or broodlords), not 1. Second of all if I make too many, I can spread them out and harass bases with erasers (irradiate my vessels and erase drones). Or I can keep them for defense matrix instead of irradiate.
Isn't the reason though that units are needed to be used in multiple capacities for BW because the fundamental expectations are at such a level that you cannot just make a mass quantity of units with a single purpose for them in mind. You need to make them worth as much as possible to obtain that little edge after little edge until hopefully you win the game. I guarantee Blizzard didn't have 90% of the situations planned out for many of the BW units and how they are effectively applied to today. Those units met a need that players demanded from them.
This all derived from the base mechanical skill for the competition rising overtime. This is a generalization, but initially you could have great macro and focus more of just out producing your opponent to win. Then the macro game developed such that it produced diminishing returns, so stronger micro was needed to make each unit worth more then the units your opponent made. All the while strategy was being developed and turned over as the expected capabilities of the competition increased. If you no longer can differentiate yourself in a tournament based on raw mechanical skill, that is when players are backed into a corner and forced to improvise.
People just don't sit down a make up builds or unit uses in a bubble, those are usually called gimmicks. Skill develops in response to a specific need. And at the moment, the need is to improve your core game skills, crisper timings, and more innate unit control. People are still exploring primary unit uses (i.e. Warp Prism). Advanced unit tactics will eventually come when the current need becomes the standard expectation.
BW was a resounding success too. It averaged 9/10 in all game reviews, got game of the year in nearly all magazines (the expansion did as well) and sold 11 million copies. The best players are earning up to 400,000 USD a year.
What about SC2, less than 3 mill sold?, that's less than 1/3rd. For a sequel of a best selling game, that's actually kind of poor, usually the next release is more popular (see halo vs halo 2 vs halo 3). We don't know how long sc2 will be popular as an esport or as a game. Of course, we should give it time, but you are jumping the gun a bit. Pure stats alone, BW trumps it.
I will call SC2 a resounding success when I see new people still buying the game 10 years after the last expansion.
Jesus talk about misinformation :
SC and BROOD together sold 11mil copys (10 years time)
SC2 sold on the first day 1.5 million copys 3 mil on the first month . the estimate selling for today date is 15 million copys (a year) . it look good to me...
And you know what , if you are at it . How many international viewers does BW has ? how many international pro-gamers ? I think idra streaming has more viewers then OSL . Only place BW still alive is Korea , and thats in decline as well . you know time is a harsh mistress .
On November 23 2011 20:23 haflo wrote: And you know what , if you are at it . How many international viewers does BW has ? how many international pro-gamers ? I think idra streaming has more viewers then OSL . Only place BW still alive is Korea , and thats in decline as well . you know time is a harsh mistress .
How much money do you think Blizzard has spent promoting SC2 compared to BW?
What did Destiny say on StoG a few weeks back? Nostalgia something.... probably too harsh to say right now.
Anyway stop comparing the games! There's still a lot of potential in SC2. Are BW people jealous/bitter of SC2's popularity?! Or just trolling the SC2 crowd? I'm very hopeful that they're just passionate about helping SC2 in promoting BW play into SC2.
Deathballs occur due to huge group selections are possible in SC2. To cap the group selection, would be a step backwards. Can people try and discuss other aspects of the SC2 play, rather than showboating matches. I'd rather hear suggestions as to how to break off from the deathball play. Potential untapped strategies/improvements. Dustin Browder said it exactly right. If you love BW stick with BW, it's a fantastic game. Let SC2 evolve by itself and see what happens. If SC2 is a death ball vs deathball type game then so be it.
Questions I'd rather like to discuss:
Would more AOE spells/units help decrease the number of mass units clumping? Say take an army with more AOE spell unit casters to battle against the deathball, and have another army else where away from the death ball to do damage?
Increase the strength of drop-play/small army harassment? But by doing so will this affect the deathball, in a way that you may as well keep those strengths with your deathball?
If deathball to deathball is the only way, is there ways to make deathball battles more interesting?
I would like to see bigger maps as an experiment, maybe in HOTS. If a race is severely disavantaged in bigger maps, maybe a buff is necessary.
for me teh comparison sc2<>bw is like icehockey<>football
i LOVE watching ice hockey, because it's almost every game a good and interesting game in footbal there is like 1/2 max. good games, the rest is boring as hell
BW was a resounding success too. It averaged 9/10 in all game reviews, got game of the year in nearly all magazines (the expansion did as well) and sold 11 million copies. The best players are earning up to 400,000 USD a year.
What about SC2, less than 3 mill sold?, that's less than 1/3rd. For a sequel of a best selling game, that's actually kind of poor, usually the next release is more popular (see halo vs halo 2 vs halo 3). We don't know how long sc2 will be popular as an esport or as a game. Of course, we should give it time, but you are jumping the gun a bit. Pure stats alone, BW trumps it.
I will call SC2 a resounding success when I see new people still buying the game 10 years after the last expansion.
Jesus talk about misinformation :
SC and BROOD together sold 11mil copys (10 years time)
SC2 sold on the first day 1.5 million copys 3 mil on the first month . the estimate selling for today date is 15 million copys (a year) . it look good to me...
And you know what , if you are at it . How many international viewers does BW has ? how many international pro-gamers ? I think idra streaming has more viewers then OSL . Only place BW still alive is Korea , and thats in decline as well . you know time is a harsh mistress .
so much bullshit, really gets tiresome .
I know typing properly is really tiresome , so let me edit it for you, besides broodwar solely in korea the sales reach up to the figure of 3 million , and that figure not even taking into account of sales made globally. You think is not a great idea, why don't we email ogn and ask how many viewers actually are watching the osl ? . Taking tl.net account of viewers isn't just sufficient bw is a global phenomenon and gamers in china still watches broodwar and take the game seriously .
If we add up all the figures of china,korean and tl.net bw audience , let's just say idra view's which you think is substantial may be relatively small in number.
On November 23 2011 20:23 haflo wrote: And you know what , if you are at it . How many international viewers does BW has ? how many international pro-gamers ? I think idra streaming has more viewers then OSL . Only place BW still alive is Korea , and thats in decline as well . you know time is a harsh mistress .
How much money do you think Blizzard has spent promoting SC2 compared to BW?
I don't think that's very relevant. Impossible to say but starcraft is such a strong brand in itself that sc2 would probably done fine without very much pr from Blizzard.
EPT
