On November 24 2011 21:59 Sbrubbles wrote: Yet another pure nostalgia inspired thread ...
BW =/= SC2
Yet another thoughtless response disregarding an OP that mentions both BW and SC2
But he is completly right... It's been that way since the beginning of SC2. People whine around how Broodwar after 10+years of development in gameplay is "so much better". People whine around because a lot of units and mechanics are different from broodwar and after they played 10years of broodwar, don't like how they have to learn completly new ways of playing RTS for SC2. People whine around how bad it is that "broodwar B-Team"-players and foreigners do well in SC2, because "the good RTS players are all still playing BW". That's like expecting Michael Schumacher's charity football games to be better than then the matches the german football team are playing, because at certain points of time he was a more successful in sports than the team...
It's a freaking different game... It is a great game. There are points that can be improved, but simply going back to Broodwar won't improve SC2... It will simply kill SC2 and create SC:BW "now with better graphics". Also Broodwars has a ton of flaws as well... If you want to see a ton of action with every unit you produce, there are other RTS games that work with real "rock-paper-scissor"-principles, in which you're forced to use your stuff, else your 20infantry units will become useless the moment your opponent builds 1tank...
So in conclusion: I like my starcraft rather brainy than stressy. That's why I play it and watch it. Passive pressure ("getting ahead") is at least as exciting as unit control and battles for me.
I kinda agree with this. There's just too much subjective opinion when BW fans talk about how SC2 should change that it's really hard to find what's actually a good improvement and what's just old BW love/bias showing.
I think it depends a lot on the players, not the game itself. Warpprisms and overlords allow for the same amount of harass in the late game as do medivacs. I can't believe that battles are lost b/c 8 supply of the P army was harassing an expo instead of joining the main army. I think as time goes on, players will discover more of these timings to abuse the immobility of deathballs even more.
Also: Threads like this should get closed b/c they add nothing but BW vs SC2 rant to the forums.
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.
The best PvZ I can think of at the moment is Kiwikaki vs Stephano in the IPL3 tournament, game 2:
Several engagements, long game, the crowd loved that game too. + Show Spoiler +
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.
you should check out any Hero's PvZ matchup. That guy truly knows how to play against zerg and peel them apart. He plays PvZ like a top tier TvZ playstyle. Multi-drop, harass and pressure
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.
What quantifiable measurement, what number, what threshold must be met before you would admit SC2 is as good or better than BroodWar?
Number of audience members at tournaments? Number of tournaments? Number of countries holding tournaments? Number of years tournaments are held? Amount of prize money given out? Number of companies sponsoring pro players? Amount of money earned by pro players? Number of units of the game sold?
Or maybe you're more interested in numbers related directly to the game itself so perhaps: Average duration of pro games? Average number of units killed in pro games? Average number of engagements in pro games?
We can discuss numbers solidly and logically, but it's hard to discuss individuals' qualitative, gut-level requirements for satisfaction.
Workers take up too much supply. If I send two dropships out to harrass in a TvP that's almost 20% of my army supply. Why do we have to have 70 workers to get decent mining? At least terran can make 10 orbitals and get a true 200/200 army except for gas SCVs.
On November 24 2011 22:12 iky43210 wrote: And the claim that sc2 is already reaching its peak, worn out and 1 dimensional is even more laughable. The meta has changed drastically over the year, and currently every race is heading toward a different drastic meta changes as well.
See the shift to mutas for zerg, more warp prism style for protoss and abusing upgrades /w zealots or HT usage in general.
Changes are even more noticeable for Terran due to how fast that race is being developed. Just 1 or 2 years from now, sc2 will played nothing like the one you see today
What? The game is actively being patched.. of course it's fucking changing. None of you automatic jump-to-sc2 defence posters seem to actually read or think things though at all. Thank god PL starting again so there's something to watch which isn't resolving around 5 second engagements and everything dying.
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.
This did, ultimately, end in a final engagement, and was very boring save a few moments that people only thought were exctigin because there was a mothership involved. Very overrated imo.
Sometimes I feel people get caught up in the moment of discussion when threads like these arise...
So many posts described how SC2 games are usually just people getting their 200/200 and being afraid of attacking each other and then ending in one big engagement...
I'm sorry, but are we playing the same game here? Zergling runbys, medivac drop, warp prism harass, burrowed infestors, ovie drops, constantly repeated pushes until opponent crumbles, Zealots in the miniral line while the main armies are fighting, dt harass, timing attacks with or without expanding, muta harass, ht harass, zergs flanking, mass recall tactics, hidden cannons, army spreading, hellion harass, banshee harass, blink stalkers, the zerg 300 food push, baneling drops,...and there are still more things you could do and I have seen being done !
I mean, are we even playing the same game here?
I understand that we get to 200/200 pretty fast in sc2, however, that also means that the army can be remade faster (espec zerg and somewhat toss), which often results in the other guy not being able to break the enemy and him getting back in for a new round during which the other guy has tried to get a small advantage from his lead (This is basically all my zvp's )
I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a game where none attacked or harass until we had 200/200 and then the game ended after one big fight...I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I really can't remember any games...I can, however, recall many many games where this wasn't the case!
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.
This did, ultimately, end in a final engagement, and was very boring save a few moments that people only thought were exctigin because there was a mothership involved. Very overrated imo.
You are the type of person I was talking about when I posted this:
On November 25 2011 08:35 ajabberwok wrote: What quantifiable measurement, what number, what threshold must be met before you would admit SC2 is as good or better than BroodWar?
Number of audience members at tournaments? Number of tournaments? Number of countries holding tournaments? Number of years tournaments are held? Amount of prize money given out? Number of companies sponsoring pro players? Amount of money earned by pro players? Number of units of the game sold?
Or maybe you're more interested in numbers related directly to the game itself so perhaps: Average duration of pro games? Average number of units killed in pro games? Average number of engagements in pro games?
We can discuss numbers solidly and logically, but it's hard to discuss individuals' qualitative, gut-level requirements for satisfaction.
Some of your suggestions just you trying to think of anything possible you can do "timing attacks with or without expanding" haha. Why do you have to take things to the extreme and suggest people are saying there's NOTHING else? Watch a BW game and compare and you'll see the difference. It's stupid people repeating the same thing over and over saying you don't see where the balls are. It's not just max'd army vs max'd army that's boring. It's all extremely short, position your units, cast spells, all within a few seconds. And yes this is the main part of the game
To be honest not much of that other stuff even interests me because it's just easy-micro versions of BW ideas, like the muta harass. If you are not familiar with both games why are you even posting? You don't understand what the comparison is yet you jump to the defence of the game anyway.
And yeah there's loads of silly overrated games. People like motherships or nukes regardless of if its a good game. Just gimmick games. Also people should stop saying metagame at all when it's not even 'naturally' changing.
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.
little need for who? I write crappy games as a hobby. Reading decent arguments about this stuff can be useful.
Personally - even though i barley played bw - its interesting to see the differences and compare gameplay. It helps to understand how differences can effect the game.
When constructive it can be interesting -especially as sc2 is still evolving (dunno about bw).
I do have to say though i micro a crap ton less now than i used to 10 years ago. I didnt used to attack move and never put buildings on control groups so I could have twice as many control groups of units (c&c/ra).
On November 24 2011 21:59 Sbrubbles wrote: Yet another pure nostalgia inspired thread ...
BW =/= SC2
dismissing the OP's concerns because he compared the game to BW is rather sad.
OP just wants the game to be better than BW by learning from it, not dismissing it as you are with your post.
Is there any good stuff to learn from BW that can be implemented in SC2?
IMO, SC2 is a fixed version of BW. Better path-finding, and better UI. (except bnet)
BW is much harder than SC2 to play casually, but BW pro matches are much more action packed than SC2 and spectator wise that's something better isn't?
But that's something devs can't pull off given how making the learning curve steep drives sales away. :/
I don't see how BW was ever balanced in casual level.
INB4 CasualSux because it's the casuals that drives the sales numbers in the end.
I've been watching more and more BW again over SC2 because the difference is night and day in terms of actual game quality. So for me at least I've been less concerned with SC2 matches (1v1 at least) and more excited about BW. I do agree with OP that a lot of SC2 games are really slow. especially when someone does something at 6 minutes to win the game and the game goes on for 20 minutes where they finally decide to win the game / the other guy gg's. Those games are disgusting and games like naniwa v stephano are few and far between
On November 25 2011 10:13 infinity2k9 wrote: Some of your suggestions just you trying to think of anything possible you can do "timing attacks with or without expanding" haha. Why do you have to take things to the extreme and suggest people are saying there's NOTHING else? Watch a BW game and compare and you'll see the difference. It's stupid people repeating the same thing over and over saying you don't see where the balls are. It's not just max'd army vs max'd army that's boring. It's all extremely short, position your units, cast spells, all within a few seconds. And yes this is the main part of the game
To be honest not much of that other stuff even interests me because it's just easy-micro versions of BW ideas, like the muta harass. If you are not familiar with both games why are you even posting? You don't understand what the comparison is yet you jump to the defence of the game anyway.
And yeah there's loads of silly overrated games. People like motherships or nukes regardless of if its a good game. Just gimmick games. Also people should stop saying metagame at all when it's not even 'naturally' changing.
I would, but I have never been able to finish watching a brood war game cause I get so bored...
Stop being an elitist ass and go back to bw if you feel that way.
Also if you read my post I'm actually not even comparing bw to sc2. I don't care what bw did cause I didn't enjoy that game. I treat sc2 as it's own game with it's own standards that I'm judging and I like what I see.
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.
This did, ultimately, end in a final engagement, and was very boring save a few moments that people only thought were exctigin because there was a mothership involved. Very overrated imo.
Wow. A game ended in a final engagement. There must be some erious magic at work. On the serious side, you should probably add that it was very boring FOR YOU, not for the majority of people who watched this. Really, do you think that was all faked excitement? Do you think I would have watched the game if it was as boring as you said? Hell no, I've got better things to do than that. I was watching it because I was just amazed at the ability of the players and the tension that I felt all game long. It was just so close until the last moment, and the game ended with a bang of genius. It's ok if you don't understand this, but please don't teach everybody what he/ she should or shouldn't feel excited about.
Do people who repeat "different game different game" like a broken record even understand what "different game" means? Street Fighter and Marvel vs Capcom are different games. One tournament will often feature both games because they're different. Most people like both, but for those who don't it's easy to pick out the one they do like. No one wants Justin Wong to stop playing one in favor of the other. When another different game like Melty Blood comes out the community can decide whether or not it's worth playing along with the other games.
This obviously isn't the same situation with SC2 because SC2 and BW are not different games like SF4 and MvC3. SC2 is very obviously meant to be the successor to BW and there are powerful forces pushing for SC2 to completely take over BW's position. When you look at it this way it's obvious why BW fans would be upset and desperately hoping for SC2 to become a comparable product.
As soon as these posts arrive by the second page it loses all point.
Let me say this bluntly first, before going into actual detail.
Harder =/= equal better, nor should the focus be on making things smaller.
and another point
harder = less popularity. (more about casuals then point 1)
Now to go into details
point 1.
Making it harder doesn't make it more interesting. What makes games interesting is how players use the mechanics given to them. Players in BW make use of the constricted control groups as their form of army control and with a larger army possible it was fairly simple that you'd not get maxed as often. The max isn't a "goal" it's just part of the game. Now take this to SC2. With higher worker count and armies that die faster, you get quicker battles, but you actually get more bang for your buck. Throwaway drops are fairly common even as you get to the highest level. The end game goal is getting the strongest army you can and getting an advantage with that army. It's more passive yes, it's easier yes, but THAT DOESNT MAKE IT WORSE. SC2 allows for a higher focus then who micros that one control group of dragoons better, it allows for an even higher level of overall strategy then we see right now and that we couldn't see in BW. In BW the micro/macro mechanics restrict how good you are, and the legends are those that go beyond that level. In SC2 the average pro must understand more strategy then the average BW pro, simply because the sc2 pros can't depend on micro/macro as much. Thats where the similarity of chess comes in, it's seems you dont like the fact that higher level strategy is used. I'm all for more action packed games, but not at the expense of what i see as the crowning achievement of SC2, the easier mechanics but higher focus on strategy.
point 2
BW could never get to the level of SC2 in viewership and as an international esport. A large majority of viewers are players (or would be players if they didn't watch), THIS is the difference that will make sc2 a true success internationally. No longer do you have to be a good RTS player or really understand the game to even begin to see what's going on in the game. Fact, people like to watch what they can understand. People can watch sc2 who couldn't even begin to watch BW (i'm completely disregarding graphics btw, since they could always make BW 2.0 as many of you seem to want). This is more relating to esports as a success vs as a game, but it is still a very important point.
On November 25 2011 11:52 darklight54321 wrote: In SC2 the average pro must understand more strategy then the average BW pro, simply because the sc2 pros can't depend on micro/macro as much. Thats where the similarity of chess comes in, it's seems you dont like the fact that higher level strategy is used. I'm all for more action packed games, but not at the expense of what i see as the crowning achievement of SC2, the easier mechanics but higher focus on strategy.
You should probably try to learn more about both games before you make comments which are way off. This is just a highlight of where you went wrong.
EPT
)
