|
On November 24 2011 02:19 Switchy wrote:
Dustin Browder said SC2 is not broodwar, if you dont like it thats tough shit. These threads are pointless
Nobody wants SC2 to be BroodWar, I don't understand why individuals such as yourself don't let it sink in. People want certain aspects that make BroodWar a truly great game to be carried over to SC2, of course no one wants the same damn game. There are flaws in SC2 just like there are flaws in BW. SC2 can be improved a lot by carrying over some thing that made BW great, read Ver's post dammit, it's true. There is little in SC2 that can distinguish top players from another, the skill ceiling is quite low. Defense busting is too easy, positioning is about the only thing that can give you an advantage over another player (not in dirt/rocks leagues).
edit: removed a deserved insult
|
I feel that this thread doesn't really have a point.
Both can be passive and aggressive from what I read
|
On November 23 2011 17:17 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote:
sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome. Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro. Show nested quote +The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt. I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised. Show nested quote +How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point. Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS). Show nested quote +No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions. Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1.
how come this is being vastly ignored, weird.
|
On November 23 2011 19:15 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +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.
As someone who doesn't belong to the "people who have spent lot of time with both games" (based on the date you joined and by reading your posts), you aren't getting the point.
Let me redefine what I mean about "success" - not in terms of popularity but quality. In this definition, Justin Bieber won't be considered as a musical "success". Not that SC2 is as bad as him but it's a success (according to your definition), it's dumbed down.
SC2 is popular because of the money put in and the hoards of people who have never seen BW before and all the foreigners from wc3 and bw who follow the money pumped in by -- Blizzard themselves. In BW, it was the korean companies themselves who became sponsors - because a game became something more. One of the reasons BW wasn't very popular outside of Korea is because people care more about graphics. Trust me, I've trie getting a lot of people to watch or play BW and the first thing they comment about is the graphics, before the gameplay.
And when I say SC2 is inferior. I mean it but not in an elitist or dismissive way, but, if you actually read what I posted without getting all hurt, as someone who wants SC2 to be better, to be the replacement so that everyone can enjoy something at the level (or even higher) of BW because it reaches a wider audience and has good graphics, instantly appealing to the casual gamer. Thing is, watching the direction they are taking makes me disappointed.
Oh ya and I didn't just waltz into a random SC2 thread and called it inferior like a troll. Read the OP please.
Edit: And I (and most people I'd suppose), will be very happy to be proven wrong that SC2 is inferior when the day comes.
|
On November 24 2011 02:28 deadmau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2011 02:19 Switchy wrote:
Dustin Browder said SC2 is not broodwar, if you dont like it thats tough shit. These threads are pointless Nobody wants SC2 to be BroodWar, I don't understand why individuals such as yourself don't let it sink in. People want certain aspects that make BroodWar a truly great game to be carried over to SC2, of course no one wants the same damn game. There are flaws in SC2 just like there are flaws in BW. SC2 can be improved a lot by carrying over some thing that made BW great, read Ver's post dammit, it's true. There is little in SC2 that can distinguish top players from another, the skill ceiling is quite low. Defense busting is too easy, positioning is about the only thing that can give you an advantage over another player (not in dirt/rocks leagues). edit: removed a deserved insult
The point is, the game is what it is. They designed it to be this way and given the popularity of the game can you say they are wrong? They chose not to make BW v 2.0 but a new game and some elements got left out along the way in favour of new elements.
Deserved insult.. whatever
|
On November 23 2011 13:12 Nizzy wrote:
1. Bigger maps, bigger maps, bigger maps, bigger maps. Stuff like twice the size of metalopolis. A map like Tal darim alter should be one of the smallest maps out there. This way 'ball armies' will simply fail, because you can only hit one part of their base, while if they hit you at multiple locations at once you'll probably lose. Because of big maps you would bring back the seige/perimeter lines. You would have zergs placing burrow banelings in areas to block off paths/swarm hosts for this as well. Warp gate for Protoss would be great here for them to warp into any base to protect it. The game would be so much better.
2. Take away the mass multi section of units. You don't have to limit it to 12 like in BW, however everything is in one big ball/ 1-3 control groups only. Maybe cap it at like 24-32 units or something. Units/armies would be WAY harder to control if you had to use like 6 hotkeys for a 200/200 army. It would put more skill back into the game. Way more IMO. Being able to select all of your units in 1 control group is so noob-ish. Even bad players might even agree to that.
3. Like TT1 kind of said in his post. The less casting units the better. Take away that stupid "get over here" thing from the viper. Less spells actually = more action. Having just 2-3 total spells per race actually makes them more exciting. TT1 also said each race having few spells to support the army, even though they're strong. They won't be as strong with armies separated around the map instead of a big ball.
Dumb Dustin Browder fails to realize. Sorry I'm calling him dumb, it's just I feel a sense of ignorance with his logic of 'this is the game I made, not the game you want' Dustin, we don't want these changes because it will be like BW. We want these changes because it will make the game a better RTS. It's already not like BW. The units are so much more fast paced IMO.
He said he's looking at ways to split those balls up. Start with those basic ones.
And those are the pretty much the best ideas I've ever heard of for SC2 (and I didn't even play BW), except #2. The ability to put an unlimited amount of units on a single hot key is important, and the map idea (#1) you have would break up the ball mechanics in itself.
There needs to be more units that control space and HOTS is attempting to address that, adding in the Shredder and the Swarm Host. Still Protoss is left out and the way the Colossus works mechanically and how it is countered. It thrives on ball mechanics and it also doesn't really control space at all. I remember a game between Inca and Nada (I think? I could be wrong but I remember it being the third game between them in a GSL semi finals) where Nada had a decent lead with Tanks + Marines and was slow pushing so Inca just marched around him with Colossus and forced him to unsiege and then wrecked his army with a much inferior force. Colossus are good all the time, but Tanks are a positional unit.
I hate casters too, and they often decide battles very quickly on their own.
|
As it has been said before. SC2 is still VERY young. I maintain full faith in that a few years, give or take, SC2 will grow much deeper in depth. There will be less ball vs ball battles. There will be new interesting strategies and tactics. And obviously, HOTS and LOTV will help expand the game as well.
|
On November 24 2011 02:38 Switchy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2011 02:28 deadmau wrote:On November 24 2011 02:19 Switchy wrote:
Dustin Browder said SC2 is not broodwar, if you dont like it thats tough shit. These threads are pointless Nobody wants SC2 to be BroodWar, I don't understand why individuals such as yourself don't let it sink in. People want certain aspects that make BroodWar a truly great game to be carried over to SC2, of course no one wants the same damn game. There are flaws in SC2 just like there are flaws in BW. SC2 can be improved a lot by carrying over some thing that made BW great, read Ver's post dammit, it's true. There is little in SC2 that can distinguish top players from another, the skill ceiling is quite low. Defense busting is too easy, positioning is about the only thing that can give you an advantage over another player (not in dirt/rocks leagues). edit: removed a deserved insult The point is, the game is what it is. They designed it to be this way and given the popularity of the game can you say they are wrong? They chose not to make BW v 2.0 but a new game and some elements got left out along the way in favour of new elements. Deserved insult.. whatever
The point is, what it is (currently)- is bad. Objectively by people who want it to be good. If a game that's good gets popular I assure you everyone will be happy about it. As for the elements that got left out in favour of new elements part .... imagine Slamball being a successor to Basketball instead of its current "UMS" status.
"I maintain that slamball is very young and after a few years of rule changing and more trampolines and more powerful trampolines added by Dustin Browder I'm confident that the game will be better."
|
I think there are 3reasons for this:
Starcraft 2 is way more balanced in a general sense than Broodwar. Broodwar purely relies on control inabilities balancing each other out. Therefore the units in SC2 counter each other rather well and control becomes less important.
Starcraft 2 is way less figuered out. Generally you want to pressure an opponent whenever you have more units on the field. But with 90% of the strategies relying on not showing your hand to early right now, it becomes really hard to figure when one can be active.
Starcraft 2 has stronger macro mechanisms for income (mules, more workers, chronoboost, queens, faster flying buildings...) and for production (queens, chronooboost, reactors...). This leads to maxing out faster and that's why often it is better to play the game in the high supply. Also if you cut economy early in favor of units, it often snowballs very fast.
|
time will solve most issues =)
|
On November 24 2011 02:33 hnQ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2011 17:17 Plexa wrote:On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote:
sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome. Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro. The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt. I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised. How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point. Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS). No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions. Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1. how come this is being vastly ignored, weird.
Because people ignore good arguments when it doesn't match the way they want to see things. They also ignore the changes they see (like every successful protoss now using warp prisms and zealot suicide squads to harass bases) and the gameplay that has always been there (terrans using multiple drops to pick off targets with little risk). This thread would have had a point if it had been made 8 months ago when turtling on 2 bases for an invincible colossus/void ray ball won games, but not any longer.
I watched BW for 2 years and the typical game is far worse than the highlight games that people post to support their points in here. If anyone needs to refresh their memory, watch any of Canata's TvTs.
|
I don't think maps are the problem
|
On November 24 2011 02:49 Teddyman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2011 02:33 hnQ wrote:On November 23 2011 17:17 Plexa wrote:On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote:
sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome. Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro. The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt. I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised. How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point. Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS). No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions. Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1. how come this is being vastly ignored, weird. Because people ignore good arguments when it doesn't match the way they want to see things. They also ignore the changes they see (like every successful protoss now using warp prisms and zealot suicide squads to harass bases) and the gameplay that has always been there (terrans using multiple drops to pick off targets with little risk). This thread would have had a point if it had been made 8 months ago when turtling on 2 bases for an invincible colossus/void ray ball won games, but not any longer. I watched BW for 2 years and the typical game is far worse than the highlight games that people post to support their points in here. If anyone needs to refresh their memory, watch any of Canata's TvTs.
I haven't been following SC2 after losing interest on it but I for one am very happy to hear this if it's true and really taking over. However for now even playing SC2 still feels ... limiting.
And I don't get the scourge part. Harass doesn't stop after scourges are out.
|
On November 24 2011 02:28 deadmau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2011 02:19 Switchy wrote:
Dustin Browder said SC2 is not broodwar, if you dont like it thats tough shit. These threads are pointless Nobody wants SC2 to be BroodWar, I don't understand why individuals such as yourself don't let it sink in. People want certain aspects that make BroodWar a truly great game to be carried over to SC2, of course no one wants the same damn game. There are flaws in SC2 just like there are flaws in BW. SC2 can be improved a lot by carrying over some thing that made BW great, read Ver's post dammit, it's true. There is little in SC2 that can distinguish top players from another, the skill ceiling is quite low. Defense busting is too easy, positioning is about the only thing that can give you an advantage over another player (not in dirt/rocks leagues). edit: removed a deserved insult
If by carrying stuff over you mean archaic concepts like no MBS, limited unit selection and no smart casting. I know some people have difficulties with understanding this, but those were not features. Those were limitations. The pop cap? A limitation. Hell, in age of empires, which came around the same time like starcraft, one could select around 30-40 units.
Starcraft: Brood War is what it is today because of the players and map makers, not because of blizzard.
|
On November 24 2011 02:33 hnQ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2011 17:17 Plexa wrote:On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote:
sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome. Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro. The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt. I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised. How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point. Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS). No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions. Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1. how come this is being vastly ignored, weird.
Good question! I'm really not quite sure, everybody posting after Plexa just says "read Ver's post" and doesn't comment on Plexa's well thought out response. I don't think this thread is going anywhere though, we're just rehashing the same arguments over and over again.
It is however making me want to go back and watch some BW matches just to understand what the older folks here are talking about.
|
On November 24 2011 02:54 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2011 02:33 hnQ wrote:On November 23 2011 17:17 Plexa wrote:On November 23 2011 13:35 Ver wrote:
sc2 is not remotely like chess.
The difference you noted between bw and sc2 is a combination of simplicity and the superiority of offense over defense. The reason you see so much dancing of armies jockeying for a tiny increase in position in sc2 is because there's so few ways to gain an advantage. Many sc2 games literally come down to the positioning before a fight because nothing else matters remotely as much as winning a battle. In bw engaging correctly was just one of many, many factors in determining victory. Certain players like Jaedong were known for their consistent ability to engage right, while others like iloveoov were particularly bad at it but could win through a variety of other means. In sc2 if you can't engage very well you will never be among the best. When you remove all the nuances of bw that determined skill, you are left with a select very few factors, most notably engaging, but also blind build order luck, that massively determine the outcomes of games because there's so little else to influence the outcome. Disagree with this. Fighting isnt just about position, for instance the Terran matchups require a ton of micro to be able to play well. ZvP is about knowing when you can engage in poor position but still come out better off. And while you draw comparisons to Jaedong/iloveoov the same comparisons can be made in SC2 - there are players who engage really well, there are players who focus on macro and their ability to outproduce their opponents (more commonly zerg players) and there are players who focus on harass and more indirect means of winning the game (more commonly protoss players) this in addition to the full spectrum of defensive play through to balls to the walls aggression. Saying SC2 is just positioning is a gross simplification and is like saying BW was just macro. The other reason for favoring big battles and massive 1a armies is the ease of movement. Movement in bw is much more subtle and difficult to organize and execute. Position (like high ground) meant much more, all races had various tools which favored defense over offense (reavers/storm in pvz, tanks/mines, scourge/swarm/lurker vs vessels, better static defense, etc). Furthermore, the smooth a.i in sc2 means that it's really easy to attack bases without bothering to micro and do insane damage. Plus there are a number of tools which effectively fight defensive setups (banelings, infested terrans, forcefields, immortals, colossus, marines, marauders) These reasons are exactly why backstabs so good in sc2 compared to bw and why you get many, many more base trades. Ironically, base trades and backstabs happen the most in the matchups most like BW in terms of skill, defense, and positioning: tvz and tvt. I don't get what you are getting at here. Big battles and 1a armies happened in BW, and despite it being easier in SC2 we are seeing trends at all levels of play moving towards multiple hotkey usage for armies and less ball vs ball games (in fact, barely any for the last 8 months). As for defense vs offense, I think you'll find that defensive play is viable and that holding aggression is becoming more and more common - see huk holding 2rax with his FE builds for instance. Defending is harder than attacking, that is why PvT was so hard for Terrans in SC1 at lower levels - as SC2 grows we will see more defensive plays being utilised. How does this lend itself to big 1a armies? Because if you are devoting say 15-20 supply to a distraction or secondary maneuver, that means your main army will have that much less supply. Therefore it's much easier for you to just get run over by a-move, and that will lose you the game outright in most cases because it's so hard to comeback. You can overcome this advantage to some degree as defense isn't entirely meaningless, particularly in tvz and tvt, but an extra 20ish supply is a lot more meaningful in most cases than a good position. In bw, position is much more important than army size, and you'd routinely see large armies improperly wielded be defeated or warded off by well employed tactics or setups. Someone like Flash couldn't make a fraction of the comebacks he did in bw playing sc2 because it's just too easy to bully your opponent around once you have a lead and you don't have much leverage to 'outplay' someone when behind. Furthermore there are a number of mechanics in place which very effectively dissuade spread out forces in favor of gathering one big army: Terran drops in tvp are absolutely terrifying, but these are more than "balanced" out by feedback, warpins, and blink. Trying to harass past a certain point is often just going to lead to wasted units, which could in turn lower your main army strength for a critical moment and make you vulnerable to getting a moved to death. In TvT the combination of vikings, sensor towers, great mobility of marines and hellions, and powerful turrets has made it very difficult in general to effectively harass behind a certain point. Then why are we seeing increasing protoss harass vs zerg in SC2? Contrast to SC1, after scourges were out harass (as protoss vs zerg in sc1) is comparable to harass as protoss vs terran in sc2! Army size is just as important in BW and that is why you see people regularly sac'ing workers to make room for more supply - we're not doing that in sc2 yet! There is a lot of room to outplay opponents in SC2, Protoss excluded (they are the exception here, and these issues will hopefully be fixed in HOTS). No this problem isn't going to be fixed with time. It has nothing to do with how young the game is, only a little bit with how bad players are, and everything with how the game is designed. Until that is addressed, the only way things can change is by drastically altering maps to promote more defense and large-scale combat which can help but only to a small degree. Blizzard designed the game to favor offense and ease of use: these are the results of such decisions. Your arguments are picking and choosing arguments and excluding the reality of the big picture. There are elements of everything that you say is lacking in SC2 at the moment if you bother to watch any high level tournament. As I said, it is always easier to attack so be patient with regard to defense and indeed we are seeing defensive plays becoming more and more effective. Open your eyes, SC2 is evolving to be a perfect successor to SC1. how come this is being vastly ignored, weird. Good question! I'm really not quite sure, everybody posting after Plexa just says "read Ver's post" and doesn't comment on Plexa's well thought out response. I don't think this thread is going anywhere though, we're just rehashing the same arguments over and over again. It is however making me want to go back and watch some BW matches just to understand what the older folks here are talking about.
This thread doesn't make sense anyway. Everyone has random opinions
|
ZvT, ZvZ and TvT are not at all passive (not counting mech strategies, but I mean those were a part of BW as well). There is always constant harassment all game from (decent) terrans, and there are still a lot of Zerg harassment options as yet unexplored, especially with Heart of the Swarm on its way (assuming the Shredder won't make it in).
I don't think any Protoss matchup will ever really evolve beyond blob vs blob though, just because of the nature of warpgate instant response and instant aggression. When Protoss has mobile production (warp prism/probe building pylon), that raises a huge fucking exception to a lot of basic strategic concepts that dictate how one should defend in a given situation, and the amount of risk you can take offensively. Playing ZvP is why I think warpgate needs to go and honestly the Protoss race should be redesigned. I like the idea of a more diverse Protoss with gateways instead of warpgates and I think it pretty much solves the passivity problem because there's no longer the feeling of "Oh, I hope all his production isn't effectively in my base or at my third, but until I gain complete map control I have to defend as if it's everywhere."
|
Many problems could be solved by increasing the supply cap to 250/300.
|
On November 24 2011 02:47 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2011 02:38 Switchy wrote:On November 24 2011 02:28 deadmau wrote:On November 24 2011 02:19 Switchy wrote:
Dustin Browder said SC2 is not broodwar, if you dont like it thats tough shit. These threads are pointless Nobody wants SC2 to be BroodWar, I don't understand why individuals such as yourself don't let it sink in. People want certain aspects that make BroodWar a truly great game to be carried over to SC2, of course no one wants the same damn game. There are flaws in SC2 just like there are flaws in BW. SC2 can be improved a lot by carrying over some thing that made BW great, read Ver's post dammit, it's true. There is little in SC2 that can distinguish top players from another, the skill ceiling is quite low. Defense busting is too easy, positioning is about the only thing that can give you an advantage over another player (not in dirt/rocks leagues). edit: removed a deserved insult The point is, the game is what it is. They designed it to be this way and given the popularity of the game can you say they are wrong? They chose not to make BW v 2.0 but a new game and some elements got left out along the way in favour of new elements. Deserved insult.. whatever The point is, what it is (currently)- is bad. Objectively by people who want it to be good. If a game that's good gets popular I assure you everyone will be happy about it. As for the elements that got left out in favour of new elements part .... imagine Slamball being a successor to Basketball instead of its current "UMS" status. "I maintain that slamball is very young and after a few years of rule changing and more trampolines and more powerful trampolines added by Dustin Browder I'm confident that the game will be better."
No, you think it is bad. Or are all those people playing/watching it masochists? Different people like different things, but apparently 'people who want it to be good' objectively decided its not good.
And that slamball argument doesnt make any sense.
|
i think this is something that blizzard is attempting to change with the new expansion. This also probably has a lot to do with the understanding of the game. People don't understand when and how often they can harrass or push timings, so this leads to much more passive games
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
