|
On April 09 2012 06:28 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 06:23 Logros wrote:Funny, just as I'm reading this thread with statements that it's just 1A ball fights and not multiple things going on at the same time I see + Show Spoiler +Stephano pop out roaches in both Nestea's main and natural mineral lines while attacking at the front at the same time and pull out a win. OP is too busy keeping this thread civil rather than watching IPL as he has said many times before. we have to convince him with words that SC2 is fun to watch rather than him watching. Think of this way - the longer people keep making good VOD recommendations, the more games i can watch later. What's better, seeing one game now that may (and by the posts in this thread, apparently has) turn out good, or getting 3-4 more good games to watch later. Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:28 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...? I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be... Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale. Well considering your "demands" of what you want from the game, you won't be able to enjoy the game today. Again, how long did it take BW to be balanced and therefore consistently watchable? Much longer than 2 years. Where am i making demands? I'm asking you for help appreciating the game you enjoy, after having explained what has given me trouble doing so.
We have been.
|
On April 09 2012 06:20 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
"I don't like SC2 as much as BW. I want someone to verbally explain, in detail, the subtle aspects of SC2 that will convince me it is better than BW. Then back those up arguments up with VODs that correlate exactly to their points. Then, when they do, I'll ignore them. Oh, and btw, I don't play SC2." When have i ignored someone? Every time someone's brought up a VOD, I've thanked them and filed it away to watch later. Moreover, lots of people watch games they don't play. Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:19 Fyrewolf wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. You are just dismissive of everyone aren't you? You say you are watching the IPL right now. Every example of those feats of micro in SC2 I talked about was shown there during the tournament, to prove the example that the things you say are lacking are actually there in SC2 right now. To be dismissive of everyone and say that SC2 is lacking in strategy or micro still today is just ignorant. You didn't even respond to a single point in either of the posts you quoted. What a terrible post that is. Like i say in a later reply, I'm more focused on keeping the discussion in this thread civil than keeping an eye on the details of the IPL game. I only responded to the points i felt needed responding to, and thank you for pointing out details i may have missed. In what way am i being dismissive?
Youre not taking in ANY of our points, youre just throwing them away! Stop keeping the thread civil, and watch some SC2. The evidence is right in front of you and you wont watch it. The IPL is a great tourney filled with some of the worlds best players. You want examples of good games, well they're on right now and will be for a lot of today. We cant make you like SC2, you know those subtleties you love about BW? SC2 has its own, you just actually have to WATCH or PLAY it to understand, because well you know... They're subtle. Stop asking us to do the work for you and then dismissing us.
|
On April 09 2012 06:26 FuRRyChoBo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:15 Ercster wrote:On April 09 2012 04:37 FuRRyChoBo wrote:On April 09 2012 04:30 Ercster wrote:On April 09 2012 04:25 FuRRyChoBo wrote:
It's a really rough transition to make because as a Brood War fan (I played BW semi-religiously from 1998-2010), you expect SC2 to match, or at least come close to, what Brood War meant to you. Not only does SC2 not have the history, but the dynamics of the game are different:
1) Economic harass is much less effective since workers return fewer minerals per trip and can be replenished much more quickly.
2) Splash damage is much more prevalent, and micro-negating spells are unavoidable.
3) Both macro and micro are easier, but coming from the same approach that you seem to be, even "incredible" micro in SC2 does not come anywhere near how watching a BW legend feels, even on a bad day.
4) The BW term "strategic play" has become "cheese," and it isn't punished nearly as hard as it is in BW because of inject/chrono boost/mules.
This is how I felt about the game when I first transitioned after finding it impossible to play BW on my new PC. I've developed these opinions a little bit more and I still conclusively feel that BW is, and will always be, the better game, but SC2 is a pretty good replacement if there has to be one. Also, you have to compare SC2 to 98'-00' BW and not BW now. Not necessarily the case. Brood War couldn't save replays until May of 2001, which is a feature that was implemented from the start with SC2. Sharing replays develops the game exponentially faster than simply playing and figuring things out on your own. Also, there could easily be weeks or months between televised games back during the KPGA and early OGN days (Tooniverse, Hanbitsoft, etc), and the VODs were borderline impossible to find. If I had to quantify it, I'd guess SC2 is roughly around the 2005-2006 era BW simply because of all the information sharing and sheer amount of games being played constantly. This isn't relevant to my post or the OP. It's directly relevant to your post because you're speaking in terms of the game's development. Starcraft 2 is going to develop and get "figured out" much faster than BW because of the technology and the communities being already established. I have no clue how you don't see how what I said is responding to what you said.
Its not relevant because he is specifically referring to the gameplay and spectating, not the methods of saving replays. While in-game replays are helpful in training and spectating, they aren't directly needed in order to figure the game out or watch it.
|
On April 09 2012 06:31 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:28 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 06:23 Logros wrote:Funny, just as I'm reading this thread with statements that it's just 1A ball fights and not multiple things going on at the same time I see + Show Spoiler +Stephano pop out roaches in both Nestea's main and natural mineral lines while attacking at the front at the same time and pull out a win. OP is too busy keeping this thread civil rather than watching IPL as he has said many times before. we have to convince him with words that SC2 is fun to watch rather than him watching. Think of this way - the longer people keep making good VOD recommendations, the more games i can watch later. What's better, seeing one game now that may (and by the posts in this thread, apparently has) turn out good, or getting 3-4 more good games to watch later. On April 09 2012 06:28 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...? I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be... Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale. Well considering your "demands" of what you want from the game, you won't be able to enjoy the game today. Again, how long did it take BW to be balanced and therefore consistently watchable? Much longer than 2 years. Where am i making demands? I'm asking you for help appreciating the game you enjoy, after having explained what has given me trouble doing so. We have been.
You have, and i appreciate it.
On April 09 2012 06:31 eFonSG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:20 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
"I don't like SC2 as much as BW. I want someone to verbally explain, in detail, the subtle aspects of SC2 that will convince me it is better than BW. Then back those up arguments up with VODs that correlate exactly to their points. Then, when they do, I'll ignore them. Oh, and btw, I don't play SC2." When have i ignored someone? Every time someone's brought up a VOD, I've thanked them and filed it away to watch later. Moreover, lots of people watch games they don't play. On April 09 2012 06:19 Fyrewolf wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. You are just dismissive of everyone aren't you? You say you are watching the IPL right now. Every example of those feats of micro in SC2 I talked about was shown there during the tournament, to prove the example that the things you say are lacking are actually there in SC2 right now. To be dismissive of everyone and say that SC2 is lacking in strategy or micro still today is just ignorant. You didn't even respond to a single point in either of the posts you quoted. What a terrible post that is. Like i say in a later reply, I'm more focused on keeping the discussion in this thread civil than keeping an eye on the details of the IPL game. I only responded to the points i felt needed responding to, and thank you for pointing out details i may have missed. In what way am i being dismissive? Youre not taking in ANY of our points, youre just throwing them away! Stop keeping the thread civil, and watch some SC2. The evidence is right in front of you and you wont watch it. The IPL is a great tourney filled with some of the worlds best players. You want examples of good games, well they're on right now and will be for a lot of today. We cant make you like SC2, you know those subtleties you love about BW? SC2 has its own, you just actually have to WATCH or PLAY it to understand, because well you know... They're subtle. Stop asking us to do the work for you and then dismissing us.
I'm not responding to every point because I'm not hear to argue. I'm hear to learn. Again, I'd rather hear a lot of comments and learn from all of them than just watch. I've tried watching, it hasn't done it for me, so I'm asking for help.
|
IPL is about to have the most intense ling/bling micro war. why dont focus on that a bit and see why zvz at least is fucking insane.
|
On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either.
oh damn, you killed it. 
OP will ignore you ofcourse, because he never had any intention of actually conversing with anyone. but good job none the less.
|
On April 09 2012 06:34 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. oh damn, you killed it. OP will ignore you ofcourse, because he never had any intention of actually conversing with anyone. but good job none the less.
I replied, actually, and thanked him for his comments.
|
On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...? I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be... Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale.
But there is no getting around the time it takes a game to develop. There's no shortcut to figuring the game out. In fact, if people did manage to understand the game at incredible depth immediately, it COULDN'T be very deep. SC2 has been developing at an extremely rapid pace over the last 6 months or so. It takes time because people are going to play to win, and discovery just doesn't have as much of an immediate payoff as the alternative. It still happens sure, but it's slowed down. And that's just unavoidable. In a competitive situation, you do whatever you can to win, because that's what you're there to do. There is just no getting around things like this, so even if the same old arguments are getting stale, they're still no less accurate.
I like both games. But I appreciate them for what they are, and where they are in their respective lifecycles. And remember, if you are comparing SC2 games to BW games, remember which games you're comparing. Don't look at a Flash VS Jaedong game and compare it to a TLO vs Goody game. For every lame cheese you see in SC2, remember how Team 8, the all-star lineup, had so many matches this season where they just cheesed game after game after game, and a ton of them were off of one base. Remember how some of them worked, or the other player just facepalmed when they read it wrong. BW is special because there are players that MAKE it so. It took a loooong time for those players to come out, and very few of them can display the kind of consistent awesome that guys like Flash or Savior were able to do. Be very careful to remember exactly what it is you're comparing. In the mean time, watch IPL4, think of the context of the players and the game, and enjoy it for what it is, and look forward to what it will be. SC2 will NEVER be brood war, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be just as good a game. Who knows, by the time the trilogy of games is done, we might look back and see it as a sequel that managed to surpass the original.
|
if u guys think he's trolling then why are you responding. either its an excellent troll or the OP is unintentionally coming off as a douchebag, or my bias towards sc2 is making it seem that way.
i think you should play sc2 and maybe by playing the game you will learn what other people get out of watching
|
On strategy:
Sheth and DRG are very good at ling backstabs in their ZvT. They are constantly trying to do it as soon as they see the Terran move out. It causes the Terran to play defensively (or lose economy), and it enables them to get a ridiculous amount of bases mid to late game. Look for any of their games on Dual Sight for examples.
Early holds against 1/1/1 were entirely reliant on potshotting the units across the map with either good FF splits or Stalker control before the timings were figured out a bit. This one is a lot more general, so I can't really point you to a specific game, but trawling through PvT mid to late 2011 should net you a decent amount.
Modern ZvP (sans all ins) is pretty much harassing Zerg early to mid game in order to get your third up safely with cannons. Even from there, it's extremely difficult to hold an early third with the Roach pressure follow ups. But essentially, you're getting stargate units, early +1 Zealots, or Sentry/Warp Prism to keep Zerg in base long enough to establish a third. Genius in his run up to GSL Finals, Parting, Sase, and Naniwa are also decent ones you should look at for this type of pressure into a third.
There's a game played by Ret at the most recent Red Bull LAN where he wins a ridiculous base trade. The entire latter portion of the match was Roach runbys, Spore positioning, Banshee defense, and killing tech builings/addons in order to buy enough time for his production to catch up to his economy and supply.
On faster battles:
I feel like this one is a lot more subjective, and may be impossible to sway you in due to personal preference. But look for PvTs where the players are doing the dance of death. You have Colossus trying to bait Viking potshots, while Stalkers trying to position near enough to get Vikings and far enough away so a Stim+run in doesn't wipe them out. While at the same time you're at the mercy of limited vision or placing your Obs/Factory in such a way as to not get it killed. And then also you're controlling HTs/Ghosts to fight each other. While fights may not be as 'slowly' decided, posturing is absolutely HUGE late game. Sure, you may prefer more things to do inside a battle, but in SC2, a lot of it has to do with what you're doing before a battle. Just as important, but in a different frame of time. Stephano's/Ret's lategame ZvP against a Mothership. Similar fungal/viking/siegetank/marine/ghost/bling dance with late game ZvT.
On micro:
Watch MC's early PvPs where he won solely on micro. Watch him busting T's down that scout Gateway agression, it's ridiculous how good his micro and target firing are while positioning himself to not get hit by all the Terran units at a time (please don't listen to FF qq, because MC's army placement and control are what make his busts work vs. all the other Protosses that don't botch it). Pretty much any of MC's 2 base timing attacks rely almost entirely on micro.
Watch early GSL seasons where the Zergs had to defend Marine/Bunker rushes. Nestea and Fruitdealer had their living off of proper control. It's interesting though, the player that can stop cheese the best due to micro almost never get cheesed due to that fact now. See: MKP, MC, to a lesser extent DRG, MVP.
Ling/Bling vs Ling/Bling is probably the most severe case of this (minus any sort of PvT proxy Raxes where you have Stalkers to micro with. Probably Summer 2011 until Fall 2011 you have the most common stage of ZvZ, before Roach timing and droning timings were more figured out. I guess this is comparable to 1 Hatch Muta ZvZ in BW.
I think the unnder-appricated aspect of SC2's speed is that even TINY advantages in micro will sway battles significantly. BW is praised for it's difficulty, and rightly so. However, SC2 does have it's own versions due to how quickly things evolve and how many snap calls are needed to be made due to limited information.
|
On April 09 2012 06:36 Haydin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...? I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be... Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale. But there is no getting around the time it takes a game to develop. There's no shortcut to figuring the game out. In fact, if people did manage to understand the game at incredible depth immediately, it COULDN'T be very deep. SC2 has been developing at an extremely rapid pace over the last 6 months or so. It takes time because people are going to play to win, and discovery just doesn't have as much of an immediate payoff as the alternative. It still happens sure, but it's slowed down. And that's just unavoidable. In a competitive situation, you do whatever you can to win, because that's what you're there to do. There is just no getting around things like this, so even if the same old arguments are getting stale, they're still no less accurate. I like both games. But I appreciate them for what they are, and where they are in their respective lifecycles. And remember, if you are comparing SC2 games to BW games, remember which games you're comparing. Don't look at a Flash VS Jaedong game and compare it to a TLO vs Goody game. For every lame cheese you see in SC2, remember how Team 8, the all-star lineup, had so many matches this season where they just cheesed game after game after game, and a ton of them were off of one base. Remember how some of them worked, or the other player just facepalmed when they read it wrong. BW is special because there are players that MAKE it so. It took a loooong time for those players to come out, and very few of them can display the kind of consistent awesome that guys like Flash or Savior were able to do. Be very careful to remember exactly what it is you're comparing. In the mean time, watch IPL4, think of the context of the players and the game, and enjoy it for what it is, and look forward to what it will be. SC2 will NEVER be brood war, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be just as good a game. Who knows, by the time the trilogy of games is done, we might look back and see it as a sequel that managed to surpass the original.
Good point, and i will repeat that i do expect the quality of play in SC2 to continue improving. Still, I'd repeat that I'd like to be able to enjoy the game as much as i do BW right now, even if it is for different reasons. Seeing as you're someone who follows both games, I'd appreciate hearing more from you on what things about SC2 you like that you feel aren't present in BW.
On April 09 2012 06:37 thrawn2112 wrote:
if u guys think he's trolling then why are you responding. either its an excellent troll or the OP is unintentionally coming off as a douchebag, or my bias towards sc2 is making it seem that way.
i think you should play sc2 and maybe by playing the game you will learn what other people get out of watching
Just for the sake of facilitating discussion, what about my posts do you think has me coming off as douchy.
Also, playing isn't on the table. I know my tastes in gaming, and know i wouldn't enjoy playing SC2 today. The same is true with BW, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching it.
|
On April 09 2012 06:16 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:10 Supah wrote:On April 09 2012 05:52 Bleak wrote:On April 09 2012 05:35 Gobe wrote:On April 09 2012 04:56 Bleak wrote:On April 09 2012 04:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 04:47 Bleak wrote:On April 09 2012 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2012 04:43 Bleak wrote:
6) There are tons more positional units and more units that can be increased in value with good micro. Aside from Sentry and Blink stalkers, there's really no Unit in SC2 that rewards good control.
do you even play sc2? what kind of stupid comment is this.... If you count carpet fungalling or stutter step as really things that reward good control, then as I've said, you really haven't watched BW enough (or any). Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what other units you think are there in SC2 that you can increase its value hugely with good control? all units require good control to maximize their benefit. saying that you can just 1a everything and get maximum benefit from units is just stupid. i played bw since 1998, and all of the blizzard games before then. it was a great game. You misunderstood me. I'm not saying the rest of the units don't shine with good control. They do. But a Blink upgrade or good Force Field control can really turn the tide of battle. The ability and the upgrade takes those units and elavates them way more then their main intended combat use. Day9 explained this it nicely in a daily with values etc. If your opponent has 50 marines and you have 50 banelings it doesn't really matter how much you split. Yes I've seen Foxer, now MKP split insanely and it's nice to watch, but I've seen countless many games where banelings just crash in and Marines fall like dominos. Alternatively, it doesn't matter what you can do with say, Marines versus Fungal Growth. You get Fungalled and you die. That's it. Forcefield is kinda the same, but it is way harder (still not insanely harder) to pull of than a fungal. When Z attacks you with 40 roaches at 12min and when you are only 120 supply as Protoss, those FF need to be really good so that you can survive. And when that's pulled off, that is amazing. There aren't many things like this in SC2. Then again these are my opinions and people are free to believe what they want. Yeah it's a little hard to understand why a more expensive unit (baneling) which is a heavy to counters the marine, actually counters the marine. And you'll will be so much more cost effective anyways with your micro. But there are so many of these situations in SC2 where it feels like "Oh okay, so he's made that unit and I don't have X, I'm most likely dead OR my units will be useless against that unit". Immortal vs armored, Marauder vs armored, Colossus versus pretty much anything on ground, Thors against Mutalisks, Blue flame hellions against lings etc. the list goes on you get the idea. So much rock, paper, scissors. For example Irradiate, a spell cast from a flying spellcaster unit of Terran in BW is the Muta killer (since Zerg players clump their Mutalisks to the maximum to attack in the most efficient and safe way as possible) One Irradiate and the clump takes a lot of damage, BUT, a good Zerg player will remove the affected Mutalisk from the group before the whole stack is doomed and continue with the harrass. You got caught clumped against a couple Thors? You lose that Mutalisk pack and there's nothing you can do but preemptively spit the unit, which makes it more vulnerable to a thousand many things and is boring to watch. It is beautiful to watch great Mutalisk control in BW, a cloud of mutalisks clumped on a single point darting in and out, spewing destruction on anything they can bite. A couple of spider mines can kill probably something like 20 Zerglings in one shot (perhaps even more, not that knowledable about the rate of stacking of Zerglings in a close bunch, have to check) BUT, Zerg player can bring an overlord to spot them and pick them off with Hydralisks. Lurkers decimate Marines. It's even worse than Banelings, it's basically a Baneling launcher attacking in a straight line, but it stays where it is and keeps attacking instead of dying when it does its thing. BUT, Terran players can scan, bring a Science Vessel for detection, and try their luck with better splitting. It is this dynamic "This can hurt but maybe I can get around it with this if I control well" is what makes BW really good to watch. By comparison, if you get caught against a big bunch of blue flame hellions with zerglings, unless you outnumber them heavily, there's almost nothing you can do. Those Zerglings will die. You either need roaches (brings us back to rock-paper-scissors), something flying, or Spine Crawlers (or Ultralisks  ) Spine crawlers are immobile, and if you don't already have Mutalisks, you can't do shit with just ling/bling. You do realize that for every BW example (sans the Mutalisk one, which would be comparable to Hunter Seeker Missile directly), you're using multiple units to counteract the same supposed problem. Lings with no Hydra Suppoert taking on Spider Mines? Naked Marines (in larger numbers) taking on Lurkers in an entrenched position with no support? Ling/Bling with Infestor support is fairly decent against mass BF Hellions if you spread, control, and flank well. Lurkers are immobile, Roach Lair is gotten often now (it has the added benefit of a strong all in, a good timing attack, or just a small number of Roaches to deflect Hellions, all three are wildly different in goal). While you may think you're making a decent point, it's a simplistic point at best and you're using two rulers instead of one. @OP Great post, will try to answer you later (though I suck with VODs, so I'l just point you in the right direction, hopefully). Ofcourse lingbling with infestor support is good against Hellions. That's why my initial example was just between two units, to demonstrate situations where one unit is completely awesome against some and horribly bad against others. That situation doesn't happen nearly as much in BW.
That doesn't happen in SC2 either, unless the other guy gets severely mind gamed. How often do you see Ling only with no possibily help tech or defense on the way against Terrans? How often do you see Mutalisks pop up ZvP without any Attack upgrade or Blink/Storm/Cannons on the way unless the Toss doesn't scout or is already severely behind? I already asked you about what Marines do by themselves against Lurkers in large numbers, or how Lings would fare against Vultures mano a mano. You need support units to make that work, same as SC2, so I'm no seeing any dilemma being brought forward.
|
On April 09 2012 06:38 Supah wrote:
On strategy:
Sheth and DRG are very good at ling backstabs in their ZvT. They are constantly trying to do it as soon as they see the Terran move out. It causes the Terran to play defensively (or lose economy), and it enables them to get a ridiculous amount of bases mid to late game. Look for any of their games on Dual Sight for examples.
Early holds against 1/1/1 were entirely reliant on potshotting the units across the map with either good FF splits or Stalker control before the timings were figured out a bit. This one is a lot more general, so I can't really point you to a specific game, but trawling through PvT mid to late 2011 should net you a decent amount.
Modern ZvP (sans all ins) is pretty much harassing Zerg early to mid game in order to get your third up safely with cannons. Even from there, it's extremely difficult to hold an early third with the Roach pressure follow ups. But essentially, you're getting stargate units, early +1 Zealots, or Sentry/Warp Prism to keep Zerg in base long enough to establish a third. Genius in his run up to GSL Finals, Parting, Sase, and Naniwa are also decent ones you should look at for this type of pressure into a third.
There's a game played by Ret at the most recent Red Bull LAN where he wins a ridiculous base trade. The entire latter portion of the match was Roach runbys, Spore positioning, Banshee defense, and killing tech builings/addons in order to buy enough time for his production to catch up to his economy and supply.
On faster battles:
I feel like this one is a lot more subjective, and may be impossible to sway you in due to personal preference. But look for PvTs where the players are doing the dance of death. You have Colossus trying to bait Viking potshots, while Stalkers trying to position near enough to get Vikings and far enough away so a Stim+run in doesn't wipe them out. While at the same time you're at the mercy of limited vision or placing your Obs/Factory in such a way as to not get it killed. And then also you're controlling HTs/Ghosts to fight each other. While fights may not be as 'slowly' decided, posturing is absolutely HUGE late game. Sure, you may prefer more things to do inside a battle, but in SC2, a lot of it has to do with what you're doing before a battle. Just as important, but in a different frame of time. Stephano's/Ret's lategame ZvP against a Mothership. Similar fungal/viking/siegetank/marine/ghost/bling dance with late game ZvT.
On micro:
Watch MC's early PvPs where he won solely on micro. Watch him busting T's down that scout Gateway agression, it's ridiculous how good his micro and target firing are while positioning himself to not get hit by all the Terran units at a time (please don't listen to FF qq, because MC's army placement and control are what make his busts work vs. all the other Protosses that don't botch it). Pretty much any of MC's 2 base timing attacks rely almost entirely on micro.
Watch early GSL seasons where the Zergs had to defend Marine/Bunker rushes. Nestea and Fruitdealer had their living off of proper control. It's interesting though, the player that can stop cheese the best due to micro almost never get cheesed due to that fact now. See: MKP, MC, to a lesser extent DRG, MVP.
Ling/Bling vs Ling/Bling is probably the most severe case of this (minus any sort of PvT proxy Raxes where you have Stalkers to micro with. Probably Summer 2011 until Fall 2011 you have the most common stage of ZvZ, before Roach timing and droning timings were more figured out. I guess this is comparable to 1 Hatch Muta ZvZ in BW.
I think the unnder-appricated aspect of SC2's speed is that even TINY advantages in micro will sway battles significantly. BW is praised for it's difficulty, and rightly so. However, SC2 does have it's own versions due to how quickly things evolve and how many snap calls are needed to be made due to limited information.
This is probably the most useful comment in the thread so far. Thank you.
|
On April 09 2012 06:28 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
Well considering your "demands" of what you want from the game, you won't be able to enjoy the game today. Again, how long did it take BW to be balanced and therefore consistently watchable? Much longer than 2 years.
These non-facts should be forbidden. Get your facts straight!
Hard facts:
You know how many patches SC had? There were just 2 patches changing balance, (1.04/1.08), one of them balancing BW (ONE!) and it didn't really take "much longer than 2 years".
Overall, ~ 90 changes were made in balance, less than the ~110 already done in SC2 since beta, including SC2 beta, over 210 changes in balance were made to SC2, sometimes changing abilities back and forth. Btw there are already 36 changes made to the infestor alone in SC2.
Thinking about the addition of replay features to BW afterwards AND the fact that the SC2 beta was played by thousands of players (and detailed facts for every unit/map readily available to Blizzard), in contrast to a probably very limited SC:BW beta, it is even more fascinating how balanced BW is.
So, seriously, PLEASE nobody ever say again that BW had to be balanced for years. It didn't. Just not true.
|
On April 09 2012 06:40 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:36 Haydin wrote:On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...? I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be... Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale. But there is no getting around the time it takes a game to develop. There's no shortcut to figuring the game out. In fact, if people did manage to understand the game at incredible depth immediately, it COULDN'T be very deep. SC2 has been developing at an extremely rapid pace over the last 6 months or so. It takes time because people are going to play to win, and discovery just doesn't have as much of an immediate payoff as the alternative. It still happens sure, but it's slowed down. And that's just unavoidable. In a competitive situation, you do whatever you can to win, because that's what you're there to do. There is just no getting around things like this, so even if the same old arguments are getting stale, they're still no less accurate. I like both games. But I appreciate them for what they are, and where they are in their respective lifecycles. And remember, if you are comparing SC2 games to BW games, remember which games you're comparing. Don't look at a Flash VS Jaedong game and compare it to a TLO vs Goody game. For every lame cheese you see in SC2, remember how Team 8, the all-star lineup, had so many matches this season where they just cheesed game after game after game, and a ton of them were off of one base. Remember how some of them worked, or the other player just facepalmed when they read it wrong. BW is special because there are players that MAKE it so. It took a loooong time for those players to come out, and very few of them can display the kind of consistent awesome that guys like Flash or Savior were able to do. Be very careful to remember exactly what it is you're comparing. In the mean time, watch IPL4, think of the context of the players and the game, and enjoy it for what it is, and look forward to what it will be. SC2 will NEVER be brood war, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be just as good a game. Who knows, by the time the trilogy of games is done, we might look back and see it as a sequel that managed to surpass the original. Good point, and i will repeat that i do expect the quality of play in SC2 to continue improving. Still, I'd repeat that I'd like to be able to enjoy the game as much as i do BW right now, even if it is for different reasons. Seeing as you're someone who follows both games, I'd appreciate hearing more from you on what things about SC2 you like that you feel aren't present in BW. Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:37 thrawn2112 wrote:
if u guys think he's trolling then why are you responding. either its an excellent troll or the OP is unintentionally coming off as a douchebag, or my bias towards sc2 is making it seem that way.
i think you should play sc2 and maybe by playing the game you will learn what other people get out of watching Just for the sake of facilitating discussion, what about my posts do you think has me coming off as douchy. Also, playing isn't on the table. I know my tastes in gaming, and know i wouldn't enjoy playing SC2 today. The same is true with BW, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching it.
Its reallly funny that you dont see your posts as arrogant or douchy. You ask us for reasons SC2 is better than BW, we tell you that the game is still developing and is on a much much faster track than BW. That not only are the games good now and you need to watch them, but they are going to get a LOT better. Your response is well, fuck what you said i want it now and i dont want to do the work...
Here ill put it this way, id appreciate it if you stopped dismissing our points, strip away your bias form SC2, and watch the VODs given or the IPL. If you watch those objectively i guarantee you'll be entertained, these games are good.
|
|
|
On April 09 2012 06:35 deafhobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:34 snailz wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. oh damn, you killed it. OP will ignore you ofcourse, because he never had any intention of actually conversing with anyone. but good job none the less. I replied, actually, and thanked him for his comments.
Yeah, you thanked me so much that I had to call it out as a terrible post that didn't respond to a single point made. That's dismissive. I explained how what you say is lacking is not, and how the faster pace doesn't make it less enjoyable. No one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
|
On April 09 2012 06:48 eFonSG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:40 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:36 Haydin wrote:On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today. Again, VOD's would be appreciated. On April 09 2012 06:03 Troxle wrote:
No offense to the OP. But your comments on the Flash and Fantasy games are the same reason you said you didn't like StarCraft 2. Flash set up a contain on Fantasy and through quick thinkin' Fantasy used other advantages he had to stop the drop. I've seen the equivalent in StarCraft 2 with Terran contains and Zerg usin' Nydus Worm or Roach Burrow Movement to get around it, or infested Terran to slowly pick away at the contain while movin' the army in a way to break out and exploit a weakened Terran who just lost a large chunk of forces. I've watched Terran versus Terran and one Terran does drops in the back ground, loads his entire army in Medivacs and lands directly ontop of the deployed siege tank contain and slowly takes it down.
That bein' said, I will agree that StarCraft 2 is a faster game in the sense, fights go much quicker, which makes micro an even more important part of StarCraft 2. Fights tend to happen in larger engagements (part of the reason for these faster fights). For any Brood War veterans, we remember the small scale battles that happened seemingly everywhere all the time. That can make for a more excitin' time. But at the same time StarCraft 2 harassment fills that gap. Players like WhiteRa and his Warp Prism make these small scale engagements more common. Terran droppin' multiple locations while pushin' the front. These might not be exactly the same as a 30 minute Brood War game that has constant battles over the map all game, but in my opinion that is just borin'. I'd rather watch StarCraft 2 mid game where you start to see players takin' pokes here to see how much they can get away with, their builds start to really form, etc...Brood War is fun to watch a game here or there, but it just gets borin' to watch small scale fight after small scale fight the entire time with no real time to take a breather.
In the end: StarCraft 2 and Brood War are separate games and its like comparin' oranges to apples. They are both real time strategy games made by the same company, but the differences between the games are too vast. There will be people who prefer Brood War to StarCraft 2 and vice versa. First off, spoilers on FvF Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight. Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more. Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...? I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be... Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale. But there is no getting around the time it takes a game to develop. There's no shortcut to figuring the game out. In fact, if people did manage to understand the game at incredible depth immediately, it COULDN'T be very deep. SC2 has been developing at an extremely rapid pace over the last 6 months or so. It takes time because people are going to play to win, and discovery just doesn't have as much of an immediate payoff as the alternative. It still happens sure, but it's slowed down. And that's just unavoidable. In a competitive situation, you do whatever you can to win, because that's what you're there to do. There is just no getting around things like this, so even if the same old arguments are getting stale, they're still no less accurate. I like both games. But I appreciate them for what they are, and where they are in their respective lifecycles. And remember, if you are comparing SC2 games to BW games, remember which games you're comparing. Don't look at a Flash VS Jaedong game and compare it to a TLO vs Goody game. For every lame cheese you see in SC2, remember how Team 8, the all-star lineup, had so many matches this season where they just cheesed game after game after game, and a ton of them were off of one base. Remember how some of them worked, or the other player just facepalmed when they read it wrong. BW is special because there are players that MAKE it so. It took a loooong time for those players to come out, and very few of them can display the kind of consistent awesome that guys like Flash or Savior were able to do. Be very careful to remember exactly what it is you're comparing. In the mean time, watch IPL4, think of the context of the players and the game, and enjoy it for what it is, and look forward to what it will be. SC2 will NEVER be brood war, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be just as good a game. Who knows, by the time the trilogy of games is done, we might look back and see it as a sequel that managed to surpass the original. Good point, and i will repeat that i do expect the quality of play in SC2 to continue improving. Still, I'd repeat that I'd like to be able to enjoy the game as much as i do BW right now, even if it is for different reasons. Seeing as you're someone who follows both games, I'd appreciate hearing more from you on what things about SC2 you like that you feel aren't present in BW. On April 09 2012 06:37 thrawn2112 wrote:
if u guys think he's trolling then why are you responding. either its an excellent troll or the OP is unintentionally coming off as a douchebag, or my bias towards sc2 is making it seem that way.
i think you should play sc2 and maybe by playing the game you will learn what other people get out of watching Just for the sake of facilitating discussion, what about my posts do you think has me coming off as douchy. Also, playing isn't on the table. I know my tastes in gaming, and know i wouldn't enjoy playing SC2 today. The same is true with BW, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching it. Its reallly funny that you dont see your posts as arrogant or douchy. You ask us for reasons SC2 is better than BW, we tell you that the game is still developing and is on a much much faster track than BW. That not only are the games good now and you need to watch them, but they are going to get a LOT better. Your response is well, fuck what you said i want it now and i dont want to do the work...
Fair enough, and in hindsight i could see how my posts could be read as wanting SC2 to have everything i love about BW. I did state in the OP that I'm open to there being ways in which SC2 being different than BW makes it better, but that hasn't come up much in the discussion. I'll try and rectify that.
And again, I've tried watching a lot of SC2, and it hasn't made me love the game. So, I'm sorry if i sound frustrated with my replies to the "WATCH IPL" posts, but i hope you can at least understand why that is.
On April 09 2012 06:52 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2012 06:35 deafhobbit wrote:On April 09 2012 06:34 snailz wrote:On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either. oh damn, you killed it. OP will ignore you ofcourse, because he never had any intention of actually conversing with anyone. but good job none the less. I replied, actually, and thanked him for his comments. Yeah, you thanked me so much that I had to call it out as a terrible post that didn't respond to a single point made. That's dismissive. I explained how what you say is lacking is not, and how the faster pace doesn't make it less enjoyable. No one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
Again, i didn't respond to your points because I'm not arguing with you. Let me repeat, I want to be wrong, and that's why i thanked you.
|
I think a lot of you guys are still too defensively minded regarding this comparison. OP wants examples now, not promises in the future. While maybe BW peaks are still higher than SC2 peaks (a point I'm not willing to concede, but I have almost no knowledge of BW), SC2 is not chopped liver, and as fans of the game you should be holding your ground on it and defending it on whatever terms the guy wants. If it's solid, it will hold. If it's not, then be honest with yourselves.
|
Interestingly enough, the first season of GSL Code-S (January 2011) had some really excellent TvTs, with what I would imagine a lot of what you're looking.
IM_MVP was trouncing everybody, if you're looking for mind-games and strategies, the finals will not disappoint. MVP planned out and executed excellent builds, designed to counter MKP's TvT style at the time: http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors1/vod/60080
Also in that same season, MKP and Nada had an excellent TvT series, with an awesome game 1 that I also believe will keep you happy http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors1/vod/60080
As for right now, I'd suggest watching the Blizzard Cup finals, DRG vs MMA. This was the year's final tournament, between two of the best for their respected races (ZvT). The series had drama, excitement, and an unbelievable ending that actually went down to a BW-esque small unit battle though involving high tech units - a complaint lodged in your OP.
Also FXOLeenock vs oGsForGG. I can not remember off hand what season that was from (if someone reading this does, pls link for OP). This game had epic, drawn out position battles, which tons of harass and counter attacks. Having been a BW Champion, ForGG had a lot of hype, and his micro/macro did not disappoint. Leenock is someone occasionally likened to a JulyZerg of Sc2 (starting young and crushing face). This game will not disappoint.
These games should appeal to the BW-style qualities you're looking for. If none of these hit the spot for you, than I deem you incurable, and forever stuck as a BW nostalgia-fag. (this is a joke, but the message is the same: if some of the best SC2 has to offer doesn't appeal to you, than maybe you just don't like StarCraft 2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
