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.
Then how about giving feedback to blizzard instead of posting on teamliquid? Posting it to them directly has way more chance they actually read it. But nooooo, every week we get a thread how starcraft 2 sux compared to brood war and while i don't really disagree we know it by now and go tell it to blizzard for a change.
Why should we force ourselves to post on there website? Blizzard is the one that needs to catch up with the times and read fansites more instead of just there own website. Many developers are already doing that but Blizzard is the only one that is still just sticking to there forums for feedback which is generally a bad idea.
Ver has posted possibly the best post in all of this topic and should be commended as a quality poster because he did a wonderful job of bringing what everyone is talking about in SC2 that needs improvement into one neat post and clearly stated the facts and issues of what SC2 is currently experiencing.
Why should you "force yourself"? Cause that is maybe how feedback works? give feedback to the people that can change, not the ones that can't. This is like yelling against a bus driver to change the traffic rules, sure the driver uses them but he can't do anything about it. Also, the reason that they should post there is because this thread is gone within a week and i doubt blizzard checks TL every single day. If you like Ver's post so much, make sure the actual developers can see it before it vanishes to the depths of the internet.
Sure, the Boxer vs Rain game will have it's moments in the early to mid game that will have crowds jeering out of their seats, but in the late game it becomes (like I pointed out in my OP) nothing but a waiting game whereas Flash and Fantasy's late game has so much movement going on inside it.
lol i know what you are saying but there have been so many sc2 tvts where the action was crazy all game long. do you remember mvp vs bomber?
auto clumping and aoe feel like the biggest differences since you can move your entire army at once everything groups together an one or two well placed storms means it's gg as well it feels like there is a way bigger disparity in speed among units in sc2 from what I've seen of BW the players are constantly moving their armies around and fighting for position if one of them is in a bad position they can pull back and the other player can't charge in/blink in/surround with speedlings and prevent you from running since the units move at similar speeds. The worker gather rate is about the same between the two games since pathing and mineral placement is inferior in BW the works get to and from mineral patches quicker but macro occurs so much faster with warp in/reactor/injects and hot keying all your hatches etc to one key the players in some of the posted games were sitting at 150/200 with 2k/2k now you can spend 2k on 50 supply in seconds.
So why can BW posters get away with making these threads in our forums lambasting our game, but if we made the same threads complaining about how primitive the ai, ui and engine is in BW we'll get laughed out, our thread closed and thread deleted?
I think it's a combination of 1) metagame 2) unit availability 3) maps
1) The metagame is simple not figured out enough. People sort of know the 'timings' to pressure but if they get it wrong they pretty much lose the game, so most players are content to just sit back, macro up, and rely on their micro for the big battle, instead of risking a pressure timing. Most of the time things get thrown off in the early game, and people don't know how much they get thrown off yet, so any timing is a risk. As the metagame develops, people will start to figure out exactly how the timings play out for different styles a play and know what they can get away with, so the game will become more aggressive- and by aggressive I mean both offensively and economically.
2) Right now, they're is simply not that many units to work with in the early game. I mean, Terran does have a lot of unit, and they are pretty much the only race that can do cost effective pressure (no matter what) on one base. Think of TvT. It could be a 2rax or hellion drop or banshee ect... ZvZ and PvP is much more one dimensional. I think in the late game there's more options, and things get really interesting. The problem though is that:
3) the maps are really small compared to BW. Even Tal'darim altar, the main, natural, and third are so easy to defend and the attack paths are so small. It's hard to attack in different locations on, for example, metalopolis, when you contol the only two attack paths from the gold base. Sure you can do drops, but it doesn't take very long for units to go from the center to the bottom base (lings are fast, stimmed marines are fast, blink stalker/collo is fast...) so if you try to attack a location with a small force, you basically get killed by his entire army. In BW, sending a small portion of your army meant that the rest of your army could attack elsewhere, and it was IMPOSSIBLE for your opponent to send his entire army to deal with your small force, and then come back and deal with the rest of your army before you do too much damage. Attacking in multiple locations is so strong in BW that your opponent must defend in multiple locations at once by splitting his army. This creates a scenario where there are many small fights going on, and micro/macro/multitasking is much more rewarding.
SC2 is definitely going in the right direction though. Give it time.
EDIT: Everyone needs to chill out. CLEARLY a lot of you people didn't play/watch Brood War enough to know how awesome it was. I don't think OP was incredibly offensive towards SC2..he's just concerned. BW people need to RELAX about SC2 not being as awesome as BW because we're getting there, and it's not going to take the time it took for BW to become awesome and popular. Give it time folks...and enjoy the games that are still very entertaining. Like go watch MMA vs Oz, it was an amazingly diverse series.
On November 24 2011 01:19 Sandro wrote: So why can BW posters get away with making these threads in our forums lambasting our game, but if we made the same threads complaining about how primitive the ai, ui and engine is in BW we'll get laughed out, our thread closed and thread deleted?
because bw was made a decade ago using decade old technology. if we had a way to travel back in time and fix it, you might have a point. in comparison, almost all the major flaws in sc2 can be fixed quite easily using the powerful editor.
Can we please stop away from comparing a one year young sc2 that is only 1 3rd from the game it should be atm to a game that had soooo much time to get figured out. I still don't get why we talk so much about matchups getting figured out and people becoming good. At this point everyone still pretty much sucks and the game is still far away from being figured out. If you really want to compare to BW, atleast use BW games that were played a year after release, and not after years and years and a fully developed metagame. Wait till about 3 years after the fucking void is out, take a recent game and then you may start comparing bw, and even then I don't really get the point. Why is it so important that sc2 is like bw, it's a different game and should be treated as such. SC2 still has such a long road ahead of it, and it has developed much quicker thus far than bw. At this point a lot of makro games do look like maxing till 200 without a lot of action, go back one year and that looked different, jump ahead a year and it will look different as well. The beauty of a game like sc2 is a constantly evolving metagame, that even changes without any patch whatsoever. Give sc2 time, wait till we have the remaining 2 3rds of the full game and the matchups have actually been figured out and we have more than a bunch of players who actually look like they even know what they are doing most of the time.
On November 24 2011 01:19 Sandro wrote: So why can BW posters get away with making these threads in our forums lambasting our game, but if we made the same threads complaining about how primitive the ai, ui and engine is in BW we'll get laughed out, our thread closed and thread deleted?
Because the BW folks actually want SC2 to succeed and try to find issues with the current game that, when fixed, will make SC2 much more exciting and force BW out of the picture (at least, that would be my goal if I had the insight to make these threads). At this time I find BW much more exciting and most of these posts I find really interesting in finding out what core elements changed between the games and then debate if it would make SC2 better or if we can do without. What I dislike however is people not being open minded enough to consider it and just dismiss it saying BW is inferior, dead and old and that SC2 is so much better. Both games are great, different and SC2 could (and should) learn from its big brother to become a better game because that is what I want, a good game to take off where BW left.
On November 24 2011 01:06 TheBomb wrote: I think its because we are reaching SC2 skill ceiling and apart from positioning and small micro advantages there isn't much to distinguish the players.
Bullshit, we aren't remotely close to a skill ceiling and we are unlikely to ever approach one.
The great players are very easily distinguished from the good players.
It seems like everyone forgot the metagame history of BW.
We should keep a meta game history book so that when SC3 comes out we can show it to everyone who will say "SC3 sucks, it's just one base vs. one base! SC2 is so much better".
On November 24 2011 01:30 Steel wrote: EDIT: Everyone needs to chill out. CLEARLY a lot of you people didn't play/watch Brood War enough to know how awesome it was. I don't think OP was incredibly offensive towards SC2..he's just concerned. BW people need to RELAX about SC2 not being as awesome as BW because we're getting there, and it's not going to take the time it took for BW to become awesome and popular. Give it time folks...and enjoy the games that are still very entertaining. Like go watch MMA vs Oz, it was an amazingly diverse series.
I watched some BW, enough to know OP is talking about. However I question if OP watched or remembers what BW was like in 1999/2000.
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.
Then how about giving feedback to blizzard instead of posting on teamliquid? Posting it to them directly has way more chance they actually read it. But nooooo, every week we get a thread how starcraft 2 sux compared to brood war and while i don't really disagree we know it by now and go tell it to blizzard for a change.
Why should we force ourselves to post on there website? Blizzard is the one that needs to catch up with the times and read fansites more instead of just there own website. Many developers are already doing that but Blizzard is the only one that is still just sticking to there forums for feedback which is generally a bad idea.
Ver has posted possibly the best post in all of this topic and should be commended as a quality poster because he did a wonderful job of bringing what everyone is talking about in SC2 that needs improvement into one neat post and clearly stated the facts and issues of what SC2 is currently experiencing.
Why should you "force yourself"? Cause that is maybe how feedback works? give feedback to the people that can change, not the ones that can't. This is like yelling against a bus driver to change the traffic rules, sure the driver uses them but he can't do anything about it. Also, the reason that they should post there is because this thread is gone within a week and i doubt blizzard checks TL every single day. If you like Ver's post so much, make sure the actual developers can see it before it vanishes to the depths of the internet.
The problem is the drivel that exists on the BattleNet forums due to non-existent moderation.
Vers post would get completely drowned out by a new omfg imba threads that appears every 10 seconds. Not to mention the discourse that would continue from Silver players making stupid offtopic posts. Remember DROPZONE, I saw people actually say listen to this guy because Oooh hes in Gold league, even though he sounds like a guy with down syndrome (no offense to guys with down syndrome though).
On November 24 2011 02:09 Utinni wrote: Reopen this thread when the last expansion comes out please... not now.
This is actually my opInion
A few notes:
Armies aren't going to have their supply changed.
Games can be epic with fast paced aggression, but it relies on the players more than the game at this point.
The above is why the "Broodwar is way older" argument works out.
I think it's interesting that a new argument has come up about how bw people can make threads in our forums complaining but we can't in theirs.
I don't think it's neccesarily true, pathing and control groups is most certainly unnegotiable, there is no point in bringing it up.
Also, i feel that pvt has not been figured out to it's fullest extent, considering toss shud be able to go above 3 bases, but don't seem to be able to. The mirror matchups are all fine as far as I'm concerned, pvp and zvz im fine with microfests, and tvt mvp even said he doesn't think mech will be viable.
Thus, i feel armies to be large enough. We still have yet to see that terran who can safely transition to only mules mining, nor that zerg who, upon reaching a large amount of wealth, has enough apm to make a majority of his workers int spine crawlers, create 20-50 more supply of army and then can cancel the spines, thus giving him the army he needs. These things seem unreasonable, but if you play the game for a living, it could be attempted.
I feel starcraft 2 players are very passive. There are a lot of avenues for aggression and activity that aren't being used to their full potential, and generally they don't get used until blizzard patches it to make it twice as powerful.
EPT
