Fast forwarded to 27 mins and what do I see...yes, the infamous broodlord/infestor ball going against the terran marine tank viking ball. The winner of this battle...
...surprise, goes on to win the game shortly after.
Holy shit, you fast forwarded to minute 27 of a 30 minute game and saw the final battle? Amazing!
It's great that no other engagements happened in the preceding 27 minutes, or otherwise your point would be really dumb.
On November 23 2011 22:29 shadymmj wrote: I honestly fail to understand who enjoys this ball vs ball combat.
I honestly fail to understand who watches professional SC2 in late 2011 and sees ball vs ball combat.
Why is it that SC2 players are expected to put up with pages and pages of terrible BW comparisons and vitriol calling SC2 a "lower standard" and "inferior" and "boring"? Because it seems anyone doing the same in the BW forums concerning SC2 would be verbally disemboweled within seconds.
I think these always end up being terrible threads that are nothing more than subjective opinion being rationalized with nonsensical argumentation and faux evidence. They are nothing but flamebait and result in nothing but circular arguments.
Post your subjective thoughts on the game on your blog, please.
I watch sc2 streams all the time, and I still see it. I think SC2 players just compare it to how SC2 was before. Its mostly still ball vs ball, just not as much. You really need to look at BW games as see how substantially different we are talking about.
Can people post some SC2 vods and I bet I can point out what people mean. (Would prefer TvP, PvP, ZvP, ZvZ as this is what we are mostly referring to)
EDIT: Watching above. (Although TvT and TvZ is an exception due to tanks/banelings)
Cherry picking matchups are we. Look at the common factor in most of the matchups you want, PROTOSS. One could say it's more of a problem with the race but you extrapolate it to extend to all races?
Huh? Go read the first post in this thread, or Ver's post (who made a similar statement, but much better written). To re-iterate I never really had a problem with TvZ, TvT, obviously I don't think it is as good as BW though.
The common factor is matchups without tanks, hence defenders advantage, secure positioning allowing you to make risky investments such as drops, pressure and odd tech play without getting 1a steamrolled. Most games in SC2 devolve into very passive play in every other matchup other than TvZ and TvT, which is what I said to not give me replays of.
Go look at the developed matchups poll, have you noticed that the only voted matchups are TvZ and TvT? But look at the reasoning, it is less of a poll of development (because seriously what does that mean?), than volatility and boringness.
Fast forwarded to 27 mins and what do I see...yes, the infamous broodlord/infestor ball going against the terran marine tank viking ball. The winner of this battle...
...surprise, goes on to win the game shortly after.
Holy shit, you fast forwarded to minute 27 of a 30 minute game and saw the final battle? Amazing!
It's great that no other engagements happened in the preceding 27 minutes, or otherwise your point would be really dumb.
Sounds like the video of someone doing something really nice, but they don't show the part where this someone wakes up from this nightmare and beats up the one responsible for the bad dream. And i know this is stolen.
Can someone show me a game where a TvP, PvZ, PvP or ZvZ didn't end in a single decisive engagement? Very rarely do we get even trades. Very rarely does the person winning the engagement decisively lose the game.
On November 23 2011 23:24 Micket wrote: Can someone show me a game where a TvP, PvZ, PvP or ZvZ didn't end in a single decisive engagement? Very rarely do we get even trades. Very rarely does the person winning the engagement decisively lose the game.
TvP you can watch any game on Calm before the storm, Thorzain vs MC on Tal'Darim in TSL3 ZvP you can watch any Stephano games
Fast forwarded to 27 mins and what do I see...yes, the infamous broodlord/infestor ball going against the terran marine tank viking ball. The winner of this battle...
...surprise, goes on to win the game shortly after.
Holy shit, you fast forwarded to minute 27 of a 30 minute game and saw the final battle? Amazing!
It's great that no other engagements happened in the preceding 27 minutes, or otherwise your point would be really dumb.
u can watch a lot of other engagements (but i do not have the time), but really the single, decisive engagement is the most infamous ball in the game vs the 2nd most infamous ball in the game...
i did not say sc2 lacks harassment or all game action. clearly that is possible the way the game is built. it's just such that the key battles are usually ball vs ball combat.
Fast forwarded to 27 mins and what do I see...yes, the infamous broodlord/infestor ball going against the terran marine tank viking ball. The winner of this battle...
...surprise, goes on to win the game shortly after.
Holy shit, you fast forwarded to minute 27 of a 30 minute game and saw the final battle? Amazing!
It's great that no other engagements happened in the preceding 27 minutes, or otherwise your point would be really dumb.
I watched the whole vod, honestly if this is how much SC2 has developed its not that much different to how I remember it. Its actually more passive than when I remember watching MKP during his Foxer days (coz that was awesome). I made a mistake mentioning ball vs ball play (getting confused here), I mean the whole vod was mostly ball vs ball, but that's offtopic.
I should be talking about the OP's point on passiveness so I will do that.
I think this is more of a misunderstanding, no matter what we say it really requires SC2 players to watch BW vods to understand what we mean. Most of us have watched lots of SC2, I have because my friends talk about it all the time. I initially played BW after first hearing about SC2, I then played SC2 for a while and was taking games off GM players on SEA at the time, then went back to BW.
However the passiveness is inherent in the game design. In simple terms, without more immobile area locking units, we won't get squad based play because as soon as you lose a small supply of units that gives a massive advantage to the other player.
Without units with high utility, we won't get cool aggressive strategies like the bisu build or skterran, just gimmicky ones mostly that only work a few times when the other player doesn't expect it. TvZ is always marine/tank, TvZ in BW comes in many different flavours even at the highest level (and they all work effectively), skterran (just bio units), 2 port wraith (Open with Wraiths into SKTerran), +1 marine goliath, bionic (marine tank), heavy metal (pure mech), fantasy (valkyrie + mech), Valkonic (Valkyrie + SKTerran). Its not like there's a standard that everyone plays, it depends on metagame (Flash switches it up A LOT), and the players (Fantasy prefers meching a lot more than other Terrans).
Without BW/Warcraft III pathing, tactics will be extremely limited because your army is almost 100% efficient at most stages of the game, and declumping while moving across the map is almost impossible and also pointless when that leaves you open to be flanked when you aren't paying attention. When you see banelings or storms you split, sure, but as soon as that's over you clump again.
Its just in the game design, I think Hots has the right idea, but they executed it wrong. I don't see the value of a swarm host as a defensive area locking unit. Its attack doesn't make sense in order to achieve that. Protoss needs air control to execute drops, fine, but having an air colossus with a very tight role is the wrong way to go about it. I don't see the point in shredders having supply, now Terran armies will be even tinier and be less inclined to attack. Nothing wrong with infinite shredders, spidermines did 125 damage and were basically free.
Fine, fine, I enjoy watching BW more than watching SC2. But that doesn't stop me from watching MLG streams or going to Barcrafts (which have been all SC2 events so far around where I live), because SC2 is fun to watch too. It's a similar but different game.
I'm not even going to dare comment about game mechanics or design any more. Quoting a couple videos prove nothing against a pool of other million videos. I have my personal opinions regarding each issue, but there's no point trying to fully defend myself against extremely narrow minded people ready to nitpick at the smallest flaw in argument or even grammar mistakes. You can't even compare these games together on "statistics" unless you take into account the population difference, cultural shifts in multiple regions around the world, change in public perception, rise in popularity, etc. See? Why bother arguing with a little video as your "universal proof?" + Show Spoiler +
All that being said, I'm just going to say this. OGN is casting BW, so I will watch BW. If OGN starts casting SC2, I will watch SC2. Commentating is critical to my spectator experience, and no other caster/duo/combo/rotation comes remotely near the quality and excitement provided by OGN commentators.
Kivikaki vs stephano is not your average game of sc2 so please don't show such games to make a point. The average game is ball vs ball with one 200/200 battle and after that the game ends.
However, in TVP things are not exactly like this anymore. Just watch some games of Killer and see his awesome pvt with multiple 200/200 battles.
On November 23 2011 23:15 FeyFey wrote: you can throw away your army fairly easy in bw with it looking awesome if the opponent isn't paying attention, and even if you lose your army you had reproduced alot by then to hold up the push at the next ramp, since the opponent reinforcement took a long time. Sc2 is faster, throwing away your army less effective and reproducing is a bit faster as well. And your opponent not paying attention to the army is almost never gonna happen in sc2. So you want to get the opponent off guard. Because the attacker is clumping and well aoes beat that sort of move pretty heavily attacking directly is often not a wise idea. In bw it was no problem to hold a good position against a full army with only half of your units. In sc2 well unit army is 1/2 of that of bw. (tank for example is 1/3 as good as in bw x3 supply wise against light units).
Basically a moving units and hoping them to hit something undefended like in bw doesn't work to get the opponent away from the main army long enough.
And i have seen alot of foreign bw tournaments, when sc2 was announced and gave bw another boost. Most of the games went cut the map in half and mine out. Try a bit of harass etc, but the frontline never really moved, though one side threw their whole army into an attack pushed the opponent back then got cleared and pushed away again. The maps effectively did that sort of map divide, because you could split the map in half with all your units, leaving no path past the army. Bit hard to do that in sc2. Well bw mapmakers managed to make maps though where its almost impossible to defend everything, you basically have your save expansions, but then there are those that are not save and you can't let the opponent take them (so they always send their reproduction around knowing they will always do enough damage and trade atleast enough to not get overrun). In sc2 you can have 70 workers on 3 bases and its still quiet okay for mining, in bw it was a lil different especially for the utterly needed gas. Gold expansions should lurr players outside on the map for an advantage, but sadly they are to strong early game in a few matchups.
So in bw basically the maps made bw look that way, while the first maps made bw look like sc2 and even more extreme. (especially blue storm was a map that was mined out before any engagement happened lol)
Maybe it will happen in sc2 too. Maybe we will end up with 1 geyir and 6 patches as normal expansions (even the main). Saying: go out there and take the damned 4th or you are screwed eco wise. (don't scream about gas starvation, i even see alot of toss with overgas in macro games). Mules would have to get 3/4 times effective, which would mean mapmaker made nerf, which is pretty scary ground. Though in bw people changed the editor as well so they could make large ramps and minerals on minerals or more the one destructable building on top of each other..
Lets just wait and see. One change is removing golds that has happened lately, though adding rocks there would have solved the problem with them. Its a try and error system the maps go through, every try revealing new information <3.
PS: i play more bw, then sc2 and i like bw for how it works. But sc2 is also really interesting for how it works and for me personally more challenging then bw. (except eco wise, eco wise sc2 is a bit too simply, but maybe thats why the rest is so much more challenging and fun)
But no one is listening, everyone does like blizz says, whats the problem of cutting 1 gayser and putting rich vespene instead of 2? whats the problem of taking out the towers to make the game more exciting for everyone (at least try and show us results).
On November 23 2011 23:15 FeyFey wrote: you can throw away your army fairly easy in bw with it looking awesome if the opponent isn't paying attention, and even if you lose your army you had reproduced alot by then to hold up the push at the next ramp, since the opponent reinforcement took a long time. Sc2 is faster, throwing away your army less effective and reproducing is a bit faster as well. And your opponent not paying attention to the army is almost never gonna happen in sc2. So you want to get the opponent off guard. Because the attacker is clumping and well aoes beat that sort of move pretty heavily attacking directly is often not a wise idea. In bw it was no problem to hold a good position against a full army with only half of your units. In sc2 well unit army is 1/2 of that of bw. (tank for example is 1/3 as good as in bw x3 supply wise against light units).
Basically a moving units and hoping them to hit something undefended like in bw doesn't work to get the opponent away from the main army long enough.
And i have seen alot of foreign bw tournaments, when sc2 was announced and gave bw another boost. Most of the games went cut the map in half and mine out. Try a bit of harass etc, but the frontline never really moved, though one side threw their whole army into an attack pushed the opponent back then got cleared and pushed away again. The maps effectively did that sort of map divide, because you could split the map in half with all your units, leaving no path past the army. Bit hard to do that in sc2. Well bw mapmakers managed to make maps though where its almost impossible to defend everything, you basically have your save expansions, but then there are those that are not save and you can't let the opponent take them (so they always send their reproduction around knowing they will always do enough damage and trade atleast enough to not get overrun). In sc2 you can have 70 workers on 3 bases and its still quiet okay for mining, in bw it was a lil different especially for the utterly needed gas. Gold expansions should lurr players outside on the map for an advantage, but sadly they are to strong early game in a few matchups.
So in bw basically the maps made bw look that way, while the first maps made bw look like sc2 and even more extreme. (especially blue storm was a map that was mined out before any engagement happened lol)
Maybe it will happen in sc2 too. Maybe we will end up with 1 geyir and 6 patches as normal expansions (even the main). Saying: go out there and take the damned 4th or you are screwed eco wise. (don't scream about gas starvation, i even see alot of toss with overgas in macro games). Mules would have to get 3/4 times effective, which would mean mapmaker made nerf, which is pretty scary ground. Though in bw people changed the editor as well so they could make large ramps and minerals on minerals or more the one destructable building on top of each other..
Lets just wait and see. One change is removing golds that has happened lately, though adding rocks there would have solved the problem with them. Its a try and error system the maps go through, every try revealing new information <3.
PS: i play more bw, then sc2 and i like bw for how it works. But sc2 is also really interesting for how it works and for me personally more challenging then bw. (except eco wise, eco wise sc2 is a bit too simply, but maybe thats why the rest is so much more challenging and fun)
But no one is listening, everyone does like blizz says, whats the problem of cutting 1 gayser and putting rich vespene instead of 2? whats the problem of taking out the towers to make the game more exciting for everyone (at least try and show us results).
Xel Naga towers will never disappear. Dustin Browder came up with it, and you could tell he loved them because he would talk about them constantly in the Alpha casts when they didn't affect the game at all.
"And now... these are the Xel Naga watchtowers... they are key in battle, oh look hes using the xel naga watchtowers, if he doesn't use the xel naga watchtowers, blah blah blah" and I'm like "dude, nobody cares".
I'm not so sure that passiveness directly coordinates with lack of fighting. To me, passiveness is turtling up, and showing no attempts to expand, drop, or poke at your opponent. I'd say a game is passive when both players sit on 2 base and eventually taking a 3rd. All the while not moving about scouting or harrasing. Even if a game doesn't have major battles all the time, personally I feel as if there can still be aggression.
What interests me most in these debates is the attempts to compare date/times when it comes to the respective games. People saying you can't compare because BW has been played for 10 years, and SC2 needs to develop, or you can't compare before the first expansion, etc, or they need a similar number of balance patches (even though I'm pretty sure sc2 has already had more than bw)
SC2 was announced in 2007. They started planning SC2 after War3, but according to Blizzard was put on hold in 2005 for WoW. So it's reasonable to assume that the real development began in 2006 and finished in 2009/10.
At this point BW was at the height of its esport popularity. Everything during the design of SC2 and everything that preceded it are things they could have drawn on in the development of the sequel. For that reason I would never compare any previous version of Starcraft to SC2 as if they had to restart from point A, because that's a lie. You don't take multiple steps back when you design a game, were that the case would we compare every FPS game to Wolfenstein? Competitive ones would surely be compared to Quake 3 at the height if its popularity. They wouldn't be expected to be released in a worse state and then have people defend its honor and say it needs several years to go from Q3test or even before that to Q3 at whatever point it was at its most competitive.
The first Korean tournaments and leagues popped up in 2000, 1.5 years after BW was even released. Comparatively SC2 tournaments began before the game was even released. For some reason this never factors into discussion either. At what point did all our gaming minds turn to figuring out the most optimal builds and when did competition factor into how we look at the game and the drive to be better? People certainly played SC1 competitively before that, if only for honor and to settle shit talking on disputes on bnet. You can find battlereports of people playing vanilla, but when did "esports" for Starcraft truly begin? Isn't that a good timeline to use in comparing the games? Apparently that's how many people think SC2 works, at some point we will have played enough hours of the highest level play that it will evolve to a similar level of brood war, as if it's foregone that that capacity is already built into the game and we haven't unlocked it yet.
If someone wanted to really plot the games they could look at the number of high level competitions in BW over the years (starting at maybe the kor scene start in the 2000s) and the number we've had in SC2. With the sheer volume of tournaments in SC2 I think we would be surprised where their timelines would match up. A couple events every year vs a couple events every month. Does the amount of competition in a game drive innovation in how it's played? Would we catch up that way?
Ultimately I think the timeline debate and when/how SC2 will magically catch up to BW is a stupid one, there might be something to be gleaned from it but it seems like no one is really interested in tackling it with any sort of logical approach. They simply say "BW is older, therefore SC2 will become better when it's as old" which just makes no sense to me at all. To me that's willful ignorance, expecting everything to sort itself out after a given amount of time.
On November 23 2011 23:47 ronpaul012 wrote: I'm not so sure that passiveness directly coordinates with lack of fighting. To me, passiveness is turtling up, and showing no attempts to expand, drop, or poke at your opponent. I'd say a game is passive when both players sit on 2 base and eventually taking a 3rd. All the while not moving about scouting or harrasing. Even if a game doesn't have major battles all the time, personally I feel as if there can still be aggression.
You should argue within the context of the OP though, its not about definition, its about the concept itself.
why do people compare a 10year old game with a 1year old game? it's obvios the younger one can't be played as spectacular like the older one ... in a few years we'll see, if SC2 can prove itself as the best RTS or not
On November 23 2011 23:52 gulden wrote: why do people compare a 10year old game with a 1year old game? it's obvios the younger one can't be played as spectacular like the older one ... in a few years we'll see, if SC2 can prove itself as the best RTS or not
I think this is what the majority of posters are doing. Not even following the discussion (seriously read the post 2 above yours). Which is partly why nothing ever comes out of it.
If you ask me, the problem is protoss warpin/cliffwalk/etc messing up with defender's advantage. As for ZvZ, it is infinitely better then Muta balls already and is not too far from sc1 pvp (which IS mostly ball vs ball one battle game, plus perhaps a dropped revear)....
On November 23 2011 23:52 gulden wrote: why do people compare a 10year old game with a 1year old game? it's obvios the younger one can't be played as spectacular like the older one ... in a few years we'll see, if SC2 can prove itself as the best RTS or not
I bet that when sc2 will have 9 years and people (may) complain about it there will be one dude like you that will say, "hey, why do you compare a 10 year old game with a 9 year old one".
Also, IF NO ONE IS COMPLAINING NOTHING WILL GET FIXED. so shut the f up, it's called feedback.
When blizzard said "we did not get anyone complaining that they want name changing enabled so we did not see any reason to do so" you were all "WTF?"
So, it's a good thing that people talk about what can be done better in this game, because this is how it can evolve. I don't want the community to listen to Dustin Bowder but vicerversa since we are the ones that make esports happen.
On November 23 2011 23:52 gulden wrote: why do people compare a 10year old game with a 1year old game? it's obvios the younger one can't be played as spectacular like the older one ... in a few years we'll see, if SC2 can prove itself as the best RTS or not
I think this is what the majority of posters are doing. Not even following the discussion (seriously read the post 2 above yours). Which is partly why nothing ever comes out of it.
There is a point, where every point was made 100times. It's everytime the same, "we missing this, and that from BW". It's good to give a feedback to the developers, so they know, what the community wants, but whining all the time will never make SC2 a better game. It's just a lack of acceptance and patience. I'm very optimistic and see SC2 esport be a lot better in a few years.
On November 23 2011 13:05 SkimGuy wrote: The game I used to demonstrate the amount of action that is possible in BW is game 1 of n.Die_soO vs JangBi in the OSL semis:
I bet you're unable to find that much action in any SC2 game xd
Idra vs Puma (ZvT), (who both played BW) on Tal'Darim Altar at IEM had a lot of drops and action around the map. I wish I could find the Live VOD rather than this re-broadcast:
Watching how sick both games were (the bw still was much better, and i'm a sc2 guy, barelly saw some bw pro games), i do not get how the hell we still using small maps like metalopolis, shattered temple or xel naga caverns (ok for beta, but we have to evolve into serious back and forth games).
Btw, i again say it. I'm a Sc2 player, barelly saw some bw pro games, and still im amazed by how superior bw is; and also makes me so sad how Dustin Browder seems to hate the comparison (tl interview) and do not want to take the best design facts from bw into sc2.
EPT
