PREFACE – This post will contain statements which could be read as implying that SC2 is a “bad game.” This is not my intention. Rather, these observations are nothing more than MY PERCEPTIONS of SC2, not objective statements about the game's quality. I want to be able to enjoy SC2 more, and I bring up these observations only to work toward that end. Trust me, i spent several hours putting this together, and i wouldn't have done so if i just wanted to troll.
Big Post Incoming
This thread has been a long time coming, but I figure with the Proleague season finished, now is as good a time as any. I've been a fan of Professional Broodwar since late 2009, when on a whim I decided to look up some games on Youtube. I found commentators like CholeraSC, Nukethestars, and RanshinDA, and proceeded to devour their archives and watch every new video they added. The first match I stayed up to watch live was the 2010 Proleague Finals, where Flash and Company routed the evil forces of SKT. Since then, I've watched as many Proleague and Starleague matches live as I could, and caught most of the rest on Youtube after the fact. I've also taken the time to research and learn about the history and strategy of the game, though I haven't ever tried playing it seriously.
Shortly after I started following BW, the SC2 beta started, and I've kept my toe dipped in the scene ever since. I have watched most Daily's, listen to State of the Game (when it airs), and will usually watch MLG if I'm in the mood (though often it will be on my netbook while I do something else on my desktop). I've watched GSL and GSTL a few times, when it ran either before or after a BW event I was staying up for, and I actually have IPL running on the other screen as I write this. And all that time, I've never enjoyed a game of SC2 nearly as much as I enjoy an average game of BW. In particular, I've never felt the sort of edge of my seat, holding my breath excitement I get regularly when watching BW. This is not to say that I dislike SC2, only that I've never liked it nearly as much as I like BW.
Part of this certainly has to do with intangibles, things that have nothing to do with the mechanics of the game itself. I played a lot of BW as a kid, and have many fond memories of doing so. Moreover, having watched many games of BW I have strong emotional attachments to the game, the matchups, the players, and the scene. Add in a love of MBC (rip) and OGN's production values, and a preference for the game's art style over SC2's, and these are big barriers to overcome. However, these attachments haven't prevented me from appreciating other games played at the professional level. I've watched and enjoyed Counterstrike, Quake, Halo, and even LoL, and had plenty of edge of my seat moments while doing so. So clearly, it's not just the intangibles that are preventing me from appreciating your game.
Up till this point, that hasn't been a problem. I've had BW to watch often enough, and whenever I wanted to I could tune in to some SC2 as a less entertaining but still ok alternative. However, due to several factors (among which the rise of SC2 is but one) the future of professional BW looks bleak, and the news coming out of Korea suggests things are about to change. The next OSL at least will be BW, but next season of Proleague will likely contain a mix of both games. After that, things are uncertain, but the outlook isn't good.
Now, I could just stop following the game, but I'm not quite ready to do that. While I do mourn BW's coming demise, I still do love the teams and the players that play it, and a part of me is excited to see how Flash, Jaedong, and other BW experts do in a new game. So, I'm willing to give SC2 another serious chance. As a part of doing this, I want to talk with SC2 fans about the things I don't like about your game, in the hope you can help me deal with them. In particular, I'd like to hear from people who either have or still do watch BW, though all opinions are certainly welcome.
Below, I will outline the three main things I feel have prevented me from enjoying SC2 as much as I enjoy BW. In each category, I will elaborate on my point, and when possible provide VODs to demonstrate examples. In responding to these points, I would encourage you to make one of three types of arguments. First, you could argue that my point isn't true, or at least not entirely true. Second, you could argue that though my point may have some truth to it, that doesn't mean the game is bad. Third, you could point out other things about SC2 I may not have appreciated that make it fun to for you to watch. In either case, I would encourage you to cite games and provide VODs to support your argument, and to remain civil and respectful.
As an example, let's say I'm a fan of American Football and dislike Soccer. To explain my views, I might say that I dislike Soccer because the ball is spherical, and that I think a ball being thrown is cooler than a ball being kicked. In rebuttal, you could argue
a) That spherical balls are cool too, b) That balls are occasionally thrown in soccer, c) That balls are occasionally kicked in football, and d) That balls being kicked is cool too.
Finally, I would ask that you NOT make any “For eSports!!!!” style arguments. To be frank, I don't care. If I watch a game, it is because I like it, not because I feel there is some moral good in gained from allowing people to play games professionally.
With that said, here are the things that have made it hard for me to enjoy SC2. The VOD's I cite will tend to have KT players in them, but that's just because they're the ones that stick out in my memory most.
1) Lack of Strategy – When I say “lack,” I mean relative to BW. When I hear SC2 fans talk about strategy in their game, to me it either seems like they're talking about build orders, unit composition, or things like multi pronged attacks and unit positionings that I would consider tactics. By strategy, I mean big picture stuff, things happening all over the map that influence the outcome of the game. Examples.
First, Ver's excellent Final Edit God of the Battlefield, which discusses Savior's ZvT. For those unfamiliar, Savior's game plan was generally based on playing defensive, teching to hive, and using defilers to dominate the Terran army. If you read the article, you'll find many examples of how he did this. Through flanks, traps, and threatened backstabs, Savior would stall the Terran's offensive long enough to get Defilers out. This style of play is common in most modern ZvT's, and something I've never seen an equivalent to in SC2.
Flash exploits a positional advantage to kill Best with repeated drops. The entire game from this point forward is Flash dropping on alternating sizes of Best's territory, pulling him from left to right and ultimately winning the game.
Third, a game from the recent SPL Final. Because it just aired, it will be spoilered.
As a KT fan, this is a little painful for me, but it's too perfect an example to pass up. It will be discussed in some detail, because it's really impressive.
Game two of the finals, Flash faced Fantasy.
After holding off some early vulture drops while suffering moderate damage, Flash pushed out and contained Fantasy at his natural.
Fantasy held his choke with a few tanks, while using a dropship to ferry some units behind Flash's army, cutting off reinforcements and threatening an attack on his natural.
Meanwhile, Fantasy got Wraiths, ambushed Flash's small airforce, and attacked the contain. With insufficient AA, reinforcements cut off, and no escape route, Flash was forced to go north, and was ran down and destroyed by Fantasy's vultures.
Fantasy then proceeded to claim 60% of the map, and ride his economic advantage to a victory, in spite of some impressive drops from Flash.
2) Faster Battles – Compared to BW, bases in SC2 take many more workers to saturate. As such, armies tend to be smaller, and thus riskier to separate. Add in smaller maps, more easily destroyed buildings, and units naturally clumping together, and any battles beyond the early game tend to end in a blink of an eye. Because units stay so close together, every unit in an army will almost immediately be in range of every unit in an opponents army, and often subject to numerous AEO attacks. Battles thus tend to last only a few seconds, and usually either result in mutual obliteration or a minor advantage in quantity, composition, or positioning snowballing into an overwhelming victory. This makes battles harder to appreciate, especially with all the flashy effects making it difficult to see whats going on.
Past the early game, BW tends to see units spread out more, both across the map and locally. As such, when a battle occurs it tends to last longer, because fewer units are shooting at fewer targets. Moreover, units being more spread out makes it easier to follow the details of a battle, letting you count army size, watch individual units, and appreciate every movement. This makes it easier to enjoy the process of a fight, not just the lead up to it.
One of the games where Soulkey demonstrated how to beat Terran mech with Queens. After several minutes of harassing Leta's tank lines with Spawn Broodling, Soukley breaks through and knocks out most of Leta's mining bases, securing the win.
Watch the minimap in the leadup, Jangbi feints a few attacks to slow down Flash's advance. Then, when Flash is a bit spread out, Jangbi sprints in and uses good control to destroy most of Flash's army. He loses most of his own, but rebuilds and goes on to win the game. These sort of attacks are fairly common in late game, arbiter PvT's, and one of the reasons I enjoy the matchup so much.
3) Lack of Micro – Again, by “lack” I mean relative to BW. And yes, I've seen those video's of Marine v Baneling fights, and they just seem to be the exception who proves the rule. Beyond that, micro in SC2 seems to be something you only do in the early game. After that, armies reach the size where fights happen so quick that micro simply doesn't happen. In Broodwar, micro happens throughout the game, both because fights are slow enough to allow it, and because some units like reavers and mutas are entirely dependent on micro to be useful. Hell, ZvZ is a matchup almost entirely decided by micro, and is incredibly entertaining to watch if you know how to appreciate it.
In BW, micro is a massive force multiplier, and lets your units do things they never could without it. When done right, it lets players win fights they should have lost, and makes spectators jaw's hit the floor. When done wrong, it can cost games, and and leads to epic moments like thisthis. In either case, it rewards good players, and makes for fantastic spectator experiences.
In SC2, the degree to which micro can improve your units is severely reduced. This is something that Day9 has talked about, as has Lalush. I think more than anything else, this is why SC2 rarely makes my jaw drop, and why fights are often less interesting than what led up to them.
I don't have a link to the whole game, because WCG sucks. Either way, a stunning example of micro from both players. Every time I watch this clip, I see the players doing new things.
Second, Tempest v Light, MBC Survivor League, 2009
Light cheeses Tempest, who proceed to execute a brilliant defense exploiting his dragoon's range advantage over marines. By the end of the game, one goon manages to rack up over 30 kills.
In game 2 of one of the best PvZ series in recent memory, Snow finds himself facing down a massive tide of hydras bearing down on his natural. Lacking storm, he is forced to fall back on his reaver control, and after a long fight manages to hold.
Concluding Remarks / TLDR
Again, let me repeat that I want none of what I've said in this thread to be read as me bashing SC2. I'm glad the game has succeeded, and happy that so many people enjoy it as much as they do. I however have struggled to do so, largely because I feel it lacks some of the things that make BW so entertaining for me. Please, help me enjoy your game more by addressing what i feel the game lacks.
Also, for the love of God let's try and prevent this thread from degenerating into a shitstorm. Be polite, and think about what you post.
Thank you, and I'm excited to hear what you have to say.
Yeah, a lotta good arguments. Frankly I think the thing that made BW special for me was the community. SC2 needs time, I have the utmost faith that when SC2 is 4-5 years old the things that made BW great will be outdone by SC2. That said the memories attached to BW aren't going anywhere (and I'm at a different stage of life now so my take on a lot of this stuff is different).
Very well written post. I only got into Starcraft in SC2 and I have never touched BW, so I'm only commenting shortly.
2) Faster Battles – Compared to BW, bases in SC2 take many more workers to saturate. As such, armies tend to be smaller, and thus riskier to separate. Add in smaller maps, more easily destroyed buildings, and units naturally clumping together, and any battles beyond the early game tend to end in a blink of an eye. Because units stay so close together, every unit in an army will almost immediately be in range of every unit in an opponents army, and often subject to numerous AEO attacks. Battles thus tend to last only a few seconds, and usually either result in mutual obliteration or a minor advantage in quantity, composition, or positioning snowballing into an overwhelming victory. This makes battles harder to appreciate, especially with all the flashy effects making it difficult to see whats going on.
In last Blizzcon, I think Blizzard said one of the goals of "Heart of the swarm" and other future expansions/patches is to "take away stuff from the ball of deaths" that the armies are. For example, the idea of the mine things terrans get and oracle caster-harras unit came from the idea of "ball vs ball all the time isn't very exiting.
This doesn't help with how the game is right now, but I wanted to say that in my opinion SC2 will not get worse as the time goes on.
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.
i enjoy watching both games and if you like the other and dislike the other then the problem is with you not in the game itself. like i don't like vanilla ice cream but i like pretty much every other ice cream but i don't say there is something wrong with that ice cream it's just that some people just don't like somethings even tho they are very similar.
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.
There is no point in this at all. The reason for all the techniques and strategies in BW is because of how long it has been out. Things have been figured out. In 5 years time with both expansions I fully believe SC2 will be like that. People seem to think that because of BW everything should be figured out in SC2. This is just wrong, will take AGES.
Also for none Koreans, the story on SC2 is more attractive. Because it's our players creating them.
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.
nobody would play sc:bw patch 1.0 over sc2 patch 1.0.
On April 09 2012 04:31 MonkSEA wrote: How can we be helping you?
This is just a list of reasons why you think SC2 is worse compared to BW.
I say quite explicitly how you can help me, and that i don't view this as a list of reasons why SC2 is worse than BW. I'd like to have a real discussion here, and you're not helping.
I don't see a problem with this thread. It's very well written, and isn't really "bashing" SC2 as much as providing constructive criticism.
All I can say, is I completely agree with basically everything you said... but the BW scene just doesn't compare to the SC2 scene, which ultimately leads me to watch SC2 over BW.
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.
About strategy part I don't agree with you. Example is MMA's strategy is playing agressive and picking zerg apart with superior multitasking. It's the same thing you described Savior's strategy.
BW will always be the harder game to play and more strategic for a couple more years. But, I have a feeling in a couple of years (4-5) Sc2 will be almost as strategic as BW due to the fact all of the different units and whatnot. BW started off the same way pretty much.
I don't see a problem with this thread. It's very well written, and isn't really "bashing" SC2 as much as providing constructive criticism.
"battles end in the blink of an eye" is a tired old troll criticism of SC2
The rest of the post isn't much better.
Won't end well.
Again, if you feel i am wrong, i would appreciate it if you could provide examples. Like i said in the post, i want to enjoy SC2 more, and am asking you to demonstrate that my problems with the game are incorrect.
On April 09 2012 04:40 Wildmoon wrote: About strategy part I don't agree with you. Example is MMA's strategy is playing agressive and picking zerg apart with superior multitasking. It's the same thing you described Savior's strategy.
I don't see a problem with this thread. It's very well written, and isn't really "bashing" SC2 as much as providing constructive criticism.
"battles end in the blink of an eye" is a tired old troll criticism of SC2
The rest of the post isn't much better.
Won't end well.
Again, if you feel i am wrong, i would appreciate it if you could provide examples. Like i said in the post, i want to enjoy SC2 more, and am asking you to demonstrate that my problems with the game are incorrect.
On April 09 2012 04:40 Wildmoon wrote: About strategy part I don't agree with you. Example is MMA's strategy is playing agressive and picking zerg apart with superior multitasking. It's the same thing you described Savior's strategy.
Very nice written post, but frankly I really don't see the point of it since people won't get it. There are many ignorant ppl to BW here. After watching the Proleague Finals today, I realized once more why BW is a more kickass game.
1) Battles last longer, due to imperfect unit AI compared to SC2, and also the high ground mechanics. 2) The game's resolution does not allow the player to command large armies easily as in SC2. 3) Macro is harder, so it takes longer to max out, if that point ever comes due to trading units throughout the game. 4) Gaining an advantage takes time, instead of one big engagement that determines the winner of the game. 5) You need less workers to saturate your minerals (and your gas) so you can field a bigger army. 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.
But you also have to understand one important factor on why SC2 has kinda took off in the West (or why it's got popular even though it has these in my opinion, flaws that make BW a better game for a spectator) :
Most SC2 viewers just don't know about BW progaming and its history. Because of that, they don't really know what you mean until they actually check it out, and most likely the majority just doesn't care because SC2 is the game that possibly opened RTS progaming to their eyes, so people watch what they like and are used to.
However, very good post again, nice effort. Hope we can get more ppl to check BW.
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....
On April 09 2012 04:43 Bleak wrote: Very nice written post, but frankly I really don't see the point of it since people won't get it. There are many ignorant ppl to BW here. After watching the Proleague Finals today, I realized once more why BW is a more kickass game.
1) Battles last longer, due to imperfect unit AI compared to SC2, and also the high ground mechanics. 2) The game's resolution does not allow the player to command large armies easily as in SC2. 3) Macro is harder, so it takes longer to max out, if that point ever comes due to trading units throughout the game. 4) Gaining an advantage takes time, instead of one big engagement that determines the winner of the game. 5) You need less workers to saturate your minerals (and your gas) so you can field a bigger army. 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.
But you also have to understand one important factor on why SC2 has kinda took off in the West (or why it's got popular even though it has these in my opinion, flaws that make BW a better game for a spectator) :
Most SC2 viewers just don't know about BW progaming and its history. Because of that, they don't really know what you mean until they actually check it out, and most likely the majority just doesn't care because SC2 is the game that possibly opened RTS progaming to their eyes, so people watch what they like.
However, very good post again, nice effort. Hope we can get more ppl to check BW.
Thing is, while they may be a minority in the SC2 community, there are lots of people who watch SC2 who watched BW before. Moreover, getting people to watch a game that soon won't be played at the professional level doesn't really seem feasible. Thus, the thread.
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?
On April 09 2012 04:31 MonkSEA wrote: How can we be helping you?
This is just a list of reasons why you think SC2 is worse compared to BW.
I say quite explicitly how you can help me, and that i don't view this as a list of reasons why SC2 is worse than BW. I'd like to have a real discussion here, and you're not helping.
Maybe this is my failing as an SC2 player who only casually follows BW, but I really don't understand points 1 and 3. Are you saying that players don't exploit positional advantages in SC2? That they don't drop multiple areas at a time, or pull an opponent's army back and forth? That they aren't capable of quick focus-firing and spreading units, or doing pickup-drop micro? All these things are commonplace at the top level of SC2. I watched the videos in the OP, but I'm just not seeing your point.
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....
I think the difference between the BW community and the SC2 community can be summed up with this post specifically.
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?
Please for the love of God don't do this. Nothing will ruin this thread faster than turning it into a SC2 v BW debate, which is exactly the opposite of what i intended.
On April 09 2012 04:49 CuSToM wrote: What a pretentious post. I cannot believe someone would have the audacity to post this with a straight face.
If you seriously "need help" to enjoy watching a video game then there is something wrong. Just don't watch it, nobody cares.
Plus, unless any of the Brood War games you linked are from 2000 then everything you said is pretty much irrelevant.
I don't "need" it, i want it.
Also, i don't want to enjoy Sc2 in 12 years, i want to enjoy it today.
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.
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?
Marine. MKP vs Parting yesterday is pretty insane.
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....
I think the difference between the BW community and the SC2 community can be summed up with this post specifically.
not sure what you mean by that. this guy is making ignorant comments about how sc2 is played. ask anyone who plays and is good at sc2 and they will tell you that you cant just 1a your armies and expect maximum benefit. all units require good control to maximize benefit.
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.
Apparently marine splitting can't compare? This post is just so wrong on so many levels. There is no limit to how good marine splitting can get just as one example. No human will ever be able to reach perfect splitting.
How about the Dark archon and arbiter having micro-negating spells that were just as unavoidable as a fungal growth? Stop looking at your favorite game with rose coloured glasses.
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?
Marine. MKP vs Parting yesterday is pretty insane.
Thank you for the recommendation. If vods for IPL are free, I'll check it out.
Did you see the GSTL final game between MKP and Parting last night? Did you watch the GSL finals last season and the season before that? The finals at Blizzcon and the final between Mvp and MMA? Every season of the GSL Code S you find great games between top players that are back and forth, nail biting and extremely close. The GSTL has some great series' that are also very back and forth, have well calculated cheese and close defensive games with great come-backs. I am also a fan of BW but I have never even thought of comparing the two because they are very different. Trust me, I've seen very boring games of broodwar and games that you find play that is just very lackluster. There are more games of SC2 to watch so of course you will find unexciting games from time to time.
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....
I think the difference between the BW community and the SC2 community can be summed up with this post specifically.
not sure what you mean by that. this guy is making ignorant comments about how sc2 is played. ask anyone who plays and is good at sc2 and they will tell you that you cant just 1a your armies and expect maximum benefit. all units require good control to maximize benefit.
lol apparently marines dont benefit from control. This guy should tell MKP to stop splitting them I guess.
On April 09 2012 04:53 WArped wrote: Did you see the GSTL final game between MKP and Parting last night? Did you watch the GSL finals last season and the season before that? The finals at Blizzcon and the final between Mvp and MMA? Every season of the GSL Code S you find great games between top players that are back and forth, nail biting and extremely close. The GSTL has some great series' that are also very back and forth, have well calculated cheese and close defensive games with great come-backs. I am also a fan of BW but I have never even thought of comparing the two because they are very different. Trust me, I've seen very boring games of broodwar and games that you find play that is just very lackluster. There are more games of SC2 to watch so of course you will find unexciting games from time to time.
I haven't seen those games, and I'm hesitant to pay to watch SC2 at this point. Are there any other games you would recommend?
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?
Please for the love of God don't do this. Nothing will ruin this thread faster than turning it into a SC2 v BW debate, which is exactly the opposite of what i intended.
K guy listen.You want help to appreciate sc2 so you made a post saying what attracts you about BW and what is missing in sc2 for you to understand and enjoy it.So you started a SC2 vs BW debate yourself. Here's my simple advice: Go here http://www.ign.com/ipl/tv?screens=ignproleague(twitch),ignproleague2(twitch)&f=starcraft-2 If after watching this tournament till the end you feel bored than its highly probable that you don't like the game of sc2 and there is nothing wrong about it.You aren't obligated to like it lol.There are plenty of games and sports out there that can peak your interest and deserve your attention,If you'r looking for what BW gave you in sc2 than I'm sorry to inform you but it won't happen.The things that happened today at the PL finals and the level of intensity is long away from being achievable in sc2 if ever.
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.
SC2 units that benefit from positioning and control: all of them.
examples would be zergling surrounds, blink micro, splitting marines, getting a concave with ranged units, burrowed banelings, mutalisk control, siege tank positioning, moving roaches right beside enemy units so you dont have half your roaches milling around doing nothing behind the front line, flanks in ZvT and TvT, keeping broodlords over high ground wherever possible, etc.
@mrtomjones stasis is a bad expample cause aslong the units are in stasis they cant be killed and its possible to rescue them by securing the position and dark archon is so expensive that he is hardly used
On April 09 2012 04:53 WArped wrote: Did you see the GSTL final game between MKP and Parting last night? Did you watch the GSL finals last season and the season before that? The finals at Blizzcon and the final between Mvp and MMA? Every season of the GSL Code S you find great games between top players that are back and forth, nail biting and extremely close. The GSTL has some great series' that are also very back and forth, have well calculated cheese and close defensive games with great come-backs. I am also a fan of BW but I have never even thought of comparing the two because they are very different. Trust me, I've seen very boring games of broodwar and games that you find play that is just very lackluster. There are more games of SC2 to watch so of course you will find unexciting games from time to time.
I haven't seen those games, and I'm hesitant to pay to watch SC2 at this point. Are there any other games you would recommend?
If you don't watch the matches live, then this is a major problem because GomTV dominates the korean SC2 scene. GomTV VODs are paid, except the first match of the series.
On April 09 2012 04:53 WArped wrote: Did you see the GSTL final game between MKP and Parting last night? Did you watch the GSL finals last season and the season before that? The finals at Blizzcon and the final between Mvp and MMA? Every season of the GSL Code S you find great games between top players that are back and forth, nail biting and extremely close. The GSTL has some great series' that are also very back and forth, have well calculated cheese and close defensive games with great come-backs. I am also a fan of BW but I have never even thought of comparing the two because they are very different. Trust me, I've seen very boring games of broodwar and games that you find play that is just very lackluster. There are more games of SC2 to watch so of course you will find unexciting games from time to time.
I haven't seen those games, and I'm hesitant to pay to watch SC2 at this point. Are there any other games you would recommend?
It can be found on twitchtv. I don't remember the chanel but I think it was the IPL channel so it should be on there.
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.
Apparently marine splitting can't compare? This post is just so wrong on so many levels. There is no limit to how good marine splitting can get just as one example. No human will ever be able to reach perfect splitting.
How about the Dark archon and arbiter having micro-negating spells that were just as unavoidable as a fungal growth? Stop looking at your favorite game with rose coloured glasses.
The arbiter had stasis, which didn't allow damage to be taken. The Dark Archon was almost completely unused in professional games because it was simply implausible to incorporate it given how much other multitasking was needed and how useless the unit was after one Maelstrom. Compare that to fungal, which not only negates micro but also causes damage, or forcefield, which potentially traps units completely and allows stalkers to outrange them, leaving you completely powerless. There are worlds of difference between how the spells act in each game, so it's not just wearing "rose coloured glasses."
the point is have you ever seen 2 or 3 battles going on in sc2? hardly most time its ball vs ball no flanking hardly any army split (1 army attacking 1 base and the other army defending the own base)
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?
Please for the love of God don't do this. Nothing will ruin this thread faster than turning it into a SC2 v BW debate, which is exactly the opposite of what i intended.
K guy listen.You want help to appreciate sc2 so you made a post saying what attracts you about BW and what is missing in sc2 for you to understand and enjoy it.So you started a SC2 vs BW debate yourself. Here's my simple advice: Go here http://www.ign.com/ipl/tv?screens=ignproleague(twitch),ignproleague2(twitch)&f=starcraft-2 If after watching this tournament till the end you feel bored than its highly probable that you don't like the game of sc2 and there is nothing wrong about it.You aren't obligated to like lol.There are plenty of games and sports out there that can peak your interest and deserve your attention,If you looking for what BW gave you in sc2 than I'm sorry to inform you but it won't happen.The things that happened today at the PL finals and the level of intensity is long away from being achievable in sc2 if ever.
1) Like i at the beginning of the post, i didn't do this to start a debate, only to provide a basis for discussion.
2) Like i said in the middle of the post, i had IPL on when i was writing it, and it's still on right now.
the point is have you ever seen 2 or 3 battles going on in sc2? hardly most time its ball vs ball no flanking hardly any army split (1 army attacking 1 base and the other army defending the own base)
comments like this show you dont watch enough SC2 to criticize it for what you think it doesn't have
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?
Please for the love of God don't do this. Nothing will ruin this thread faster than turning it into a SC2 v BW debate, which is exactly the opposite of what i intended.
Are you serious?
You made a topic that essentially downplays every aspect of SC2 while glorifying BW, and you want people to tell you how SC2 can become as enjoyable to you as BW is.
How would you go about that without comparing the two?
This thread is just going to grow into a hate/bashing thread. Honestly we shouldn't have to convince you on how to appreciate SC2 more. I just believe that it should come naturally. I watched a lot of tournaments and streams when I transitioned to SC2. It took some time to become familiar with the game, and when I did I grew to appreciate the game that much more. Basically what I'm saying is just try it out and decide for yourself.
On April 09 2012 04:58 TaShadan wrote: the point is have you ever seen 2 or 3 battles going on in sc2? hardly most time its ball vs ball no flanking hardly any army split (1 army attacking 1 base and the other army defending the own base)
On April 09 2012 04:57 TaShadan wrote: @mrtomjones stasis is a bad expample cause aslong the units are in stasis they cant be killed and its possible to rescue them by securing the position and dark archon is so expensive that he is hardly used
Just because it is rarely used doesn't change the fact that there are movement impairment spells in BW too. That guy made it seem like BW was perfect which is ammusing to me. Neither is flawless.
Battles don't really end instantly in SC2. Death balls are becoming less and less prevalent, and you're seeing more and more positional play, or multiprong attacks, or multi-location harass while battles are being fought. BW forced you to have to spread out your units, and micro more thanks to bad unit pathing and small control groups. A lot of players in SC2 have used the better AI and control groups as a crutch, and even though they CAN spread out and have their units all over the map, they don't. Some, however, are doing stuff just like that.
Also, you have maps coming out that are more and more positioning-dependent for the outcome of battles. Cloud kingdom has been an excellent example of that, and it's produced some very different games. While BW and SC2 do have some differences, I think people are too quick to say that some of the things that made BW engagements great are gone in SC2. A lot of this stuff is still here, it's just not something players are FORCED to do. I'd also like to point out that the top tier of SC2 players have looked like they were playing a completely different game than everyone else. But then people caught up, and then the new top tier again changed the way people looked at how the game is played. Last october, no one would have even thought that you could manage baneling bombs effectively by predicting where your opponent burrowed them, then sending single marines out and shooting your own marine with tanks to take out the burrowed units without wasting a scan before you moved your units. But Jjakji did it last december during a GSL finals. And look at Marineking last night in the GSTL finals, and today in the IPL4. This guy is an absolute monster. He just does things that other people don't think to do, or don't have the physical ability to. You're dealing with a guy who, on a variety show Gom ran stutter step microed his marines without a keyboard. And it looked normal. EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT HAVE AN "A" KEY TO PRESS. If you want to look at the game SC2 is becoming, even before the anti-deathball, space control units of HOTS provide, watch that guy. ST_Parting is a great protoss example, and MVP_Dongraegu is a good zerg one, if you're interested in seeing what this stuff looks like for other races. But as good as they are, marineking, right now, looks like he's in another league. He looks like the future.
On April 09 2012 04:58 TaShadan wrote: the point is have you ever seen 2 or 3 battles going on in sc2? hardly most time its ball vs ball no flanking hardly any army split (1 army attacking 1 base and the other army defending the own base)
You cleary don't know what you are talking about.
Yah... I see flanks in almost every game I watch. Huk and Parting have even been doing HT flanks in IPL
On April 09 2012 04:58 TaShadan wrote: the point is have you ever seen 2 or 3 battles going on in sc2? hardly most time its ball vs ball no flanking hardly any army split (1 army attacking 1 base and the other army defending the own base)
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?
Please for the love of God don't do this. Nothing will ruin this thread faster than turning it into a SC2 v BW debate, which is exactly the opposite of what i intended.
Are you serious?
You made a topic that essentially downplays every aspect of SC2 while glorifying BW, and you want people to tell you how SC2 can become as enjoyable to you as BW is.
How would you go about that without comparing the two?
No, i made a thread that highlights what i enjoy most about BW, and haven't seen in SC2. These were not criticisms, only observations.
You can't prove me wrong without comparing the two games, however you can do so without criticizing them.
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?
Please for the love of God don't do this. Nothing will ruin this thread faster than turning it into a SC2 v BW debate, which is exactly the opposite of what i intended.
K guy listen.You want help to appreciate sc2 so you made a post saying what attracts you about BW and what is missing in sc2 for you to understand and enjoy it.So you started a SC2 vs BW debate yourself. Here's my simple advice: Go here http://www.ign.com/ipl/tv?screens=ignproleague(twitch),ignproleague2(twitch)&f=starcraft-2 If after watching this tournament till the end you feel bored than its highly probable that you don't like the game of sc2 and there is nothing wrong about it.You aren't obligated to like lol.There are plenty of games and sports out there that can peak your interest and deserve your attention,If you looking for what BW gave you in sc2 than I'm sorry to inform you but it won't happen.The things that happened today at the PL finals and the level of intensity is long away from being achievable in sc2 if ever.
1) Like i at the beginning of the post, i didn't do this to start a debate, only to provide a basis for discussion.
2) Like i said in the middle of the post, i had IPL on when i was writing it, and it's still on right now.
I know but what discussion?Its about what you as individual like,no one can make you like apples if you like oranges more instead.If something interests you just go with it and don't try to overthink.No one gave you a motivational speech about why you should watch BW,you just liked the game and started watching it no?Do the same thing here.
On April 09 2012 04:53 WArped wrote: Did you see the GSTL final game between MKP and Parting last night? Did you watch the GSL finals last season and the season before that? The finals at Blizzcon and the final between Mvp and MMA? Every season of the GSL Code S you find great games between top players that are back and forth, nail biting and extremely close. The GSTL has some great series' that are also very back and forth, have well calculated cheese and close defensive games with great come-backs. I am also a fan of BW but I have never even thought of comparing the two because they are very different. Trust me, I've seen very boring games of broodwar and games that you find play that is just very lackluster. There are more games of SC2 to watch so of course you will find unexciting games from time to time.
I haven't seen those games, and I'm hesitant to pay to watch SC2 at this point. Are there any other games you would recommend?
The Blizzard Cup final, GSL May Semi final between sCfou and NesTea and the GSTL May final between SlayerS and Mvp. Theres plenty more games, and that's all from just one year of SC2, the second year the game is even released. Go figure.
On April 09 2012 04:57 DeepElemBlues wrote: SC2 units that benefit from positioning and control: all of them.
examples would be zergling surrounds, blink micro, splitting marines, getting a concave with ranged units, burrowed banelings, mutalisk control, siege tank positioning, moving roaches right beside enemy units so you dont have half your roaches milling around doing nothing behind the front line, flanks in ZvT and TvT, keeping broodlords over high ground wherever possible, etc.
These are just examples of general unit control and positioning. I'm talking about upgrades or ways of control that takes a unit's value and multiplies it. Blink as I've said, as an upgrade, is a good example. Good blink usage could get you out of situations with victory, where you would die to roaches on open ground without it. I'm not talking about general unit control, what you are saying is basic RTS play and most of them are common sense.
On April 09 2012 04:53 WArped wrote: Did you see the GSTL final game between MKP and Parting last night? Did you watch the GSL finals last season and the season before that? The finals at Blizzcon and the final between Mvp and MMA? Every season of the GSL Code S you find great games between top players that are back and forth, nail biting and extremely close. The GSTL has some great series' that are also very back and forth, have well calculated cheese and close defensive games with great come-backs. I am also a fan of BW but I have never even thought of comparing the two because they are very different. Trust me, I've seen very boring games of broodwar and games that you find play that is just very lackluster. There are more games of SC2 to watch so of course you will find unexciting games from time to time.
I haven't seen those games, and I'm hesitant to pay to watch SC2 at this point. Are there any other games you would recommend?
The Blizzard Cup final, GSL May Semi final between sCfou and NesTea and the GSTL May final between SlayerS and Mvp.
This is going to end the same way as all the other posts. BW is not the same game as sc2. If you're trying to enjoy sc2, stop comparing them using such umbrella terms. Let me sum up your post for you:
I want to enjoy sc2, but I feel bw is the better game because sc2 1) lacks strategy 2) the battle are too fast 3) lacks micro
If you wanted someone to persuade you, you wouldn't have created so many examples with vods in your post. You sound like you're looking for an argument in areas that can't be argued. Micro is more important in bw than sc2. I can't think of anyone who disagrees with that. So what are you looking for? You ended your post with "please, try to prove me wrong by addressing these points that sc2 lacks" rather than "please, tell me what you guys find exciting in sc2" There are 0 vod links or mentions of games you find entertaining or things you like from the game.
On April 09 2012 04:53 WArped wrote: Did you see the GSTL final game between MKP and Parting last night? Did you watch the GSL finals last season and the season before that? The finals at Blizzcon and the final between Mvp and MMA? Every season of the GSL Code S you find great games between top players that are back and forth, nail biting and extremely close. The GSTL has some great series' that are also very back and forth, have well calculated cheese and close defensive games with great come-backs. I am also a fan of BW but I have never even thought of comparing the two because they are very different. Trust me, I've seen very boring games of broodwar and games that you find play that is just very lackluster. There are more games of SC2 to watch so of course you will find unexciting games from time to time.
I haven't seen those games, and I'm hesitant to pay to watch SC2 at this point. Are there any other games you would recommend?
The Blizzard Cup final, GSL May Semi final between sCfou and NesTea and the GSTL May final between SlayerS and Mvp.
DRG vs MMA game 7 in their final...
Thank you, i will check those out.
On April 09 2012 05:03 phiinix wrote: This is going to end the same way as all the other posts. BW is not the same game as sc2. If you're trying to enjoy sc2, stop comparing them using such umbrella terms. Let me sum up your post for you:
I want to enjoy sc2, but I feel bw is the better game because sc2 1) lacks strategy 2) the battle are too fast 3) lacks micro
If you wanted someone to persuade you, you wouldn't have created so many examples with vods in your post. You sound like you're looking for an argument in areas that can't be argued. Micro is more important in bw than sc2. I can't think of anyone who disagrees with that. So what are you looking for? You ended your post with "please, try to prove me wrong by addressing these points that sc2 lacks" rather than "please, tell me what you guys find exciting in sc2" There are 0 vod links or mentions of games you find entertaining or things you like from the game.
Why do you doubt my claim that i want to be persuaded to watch SC2? Why would i have kept watching Sc2 casually or spend several hours writing this post if i didn't? And of course i don't link vods of SC2, thats the point of the thread.
Sincerely, after watching the proleague finals and most of the IPL tournament, i'm certain SC2 will never have the deepness of Broodwar. There's no better game tha BW, sadly, it is what it is. Kespa is dropping BW, and the only game in RTS town is SC2.
Only thing I can recommend you is that you should open yourself to SC2 and don't assume that if it's not 100% the same as BW it won't be fun. I myself was casual BW follower before and now I enjoy SC2 very much.
On April 09 2012 05:04 legaton wrote: Sincerely, after watching the proleague finals and most of the IPL tournament, i'm certain SC2 will never have the deepness of Broodwar. There's no better game tha BW, sadly, it is what it is. Kespa is dropping BW, and the only game in RTS town is SC2.
You realize that there are 2 expansions and about 8 years time to go before it is even fair to make that comment right
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?
Please for the love of God don't do this. Nothing will ruin this thread faster than turning it into a SC2 v BW debate, which is exactly the opposite of what i intended.
K guy listen.You want help to appreciate sc2 so you made a post saying what attracts you about BW and what is missing in sc2 for you to understand and enjoy it.So you started a SC2 vs BW debate yourself. Here's my simple advice: Go here http://www.ign.com/ipl/tv?screens=ignproleague(twitch),ignproleague2(twitch)&f=starcraft-2 If after watching this tournament till the end you feel bored than its highly probable that you don't like the game of sc2 and there is nothing wrong about it.You aren't obligated to like lol.There are plenty of games and sports out there that can peak your interest and deserve your attention,If you looking for what BW gave you in sc2 than I'm sorry to inform you but it won't happen.The things that happened today at the PL finals and the level of intensity is long away from being achievable in sc2 if ever.
1) Like i at the beginning of the post, i didn't do this to start a debate, only to provide a basis for discussion.
2) Like i said in the middle of the post, i had IPL on when i was writing it, and it's still on right now.
I know but what discussion?Its about what you as individual like,no one can make you like apples if you like oranges more instead.If something interests you just go with it and don't try to overthink.No one gave you a motivational speech about why you should watch BW,you just liked the game and started watching it no?Do the same thing here.
Exactly what I was trying to say, just a lot more well-written lol.
These are just examples of general unit control and positioning. I'm talking about upgrades or ways of control that takes a unit's value and multiplies it. Blink as I've said, as an upgrade, is a good example. Good blink usage could get you out of situations with victory, where you would die to roaches on open ground without it. I'm not talking about general unit control, what you are saying is basic RTS play and most of them are common sense.
well if you want examples and then dismiss the examples based on specious reasoning please don't even ask for them
if you honestly think the examples i gave dont multiply a unit's value then you're incapable on a different level of having this discussion, but the level you're on is trash SC2 at all cost
people like you are why it is impossible to have this kind of discussion
Kind of stating the obvious here, but maybe SC2 isn't the right game for you. Plain and simple. And you shouldn't wait for balanced and serious discussion when your first point is:
Lack of Strategy – When I say “lack,” I mean relative to BW.
Doesn't mean I can't understand the general direction you're coming from, but there is a reason why threads about religion are practically banned on TL. And this here has a nice religious touch.
try watching grubby's stream, expecially his pvts. people talk about how sc2 is all just massing a big army and going out to fight the other big army at the end of the game but grubby has shown that this doesnt have to be standard. a lot of time's he'll fly in a warp rpism, warp in 2-4 hts to make archons and a wave of zealots and assualt an expansion, meanwhile hes's on the other side of the map harassing with dts and poking with his remaining army at the front trying to find a weak spot once the terran has split their army to deal with all the harassment
On April 09 2012 05:06 hegeo wrote: Kind of stating the obvious here, but maybe SC2 isn't the right game for you. Plain and simple. And you shouldn't wait for balanced and serious discussion when your first point is:
Lack of Strategy – When I say “lack,” I mean relative to BW.
Doesn't mean I can't understand the general direction you're coming from, but there is a reason why threads about religion are practically banned on TL. And this here has a nice religious touch.
You're right, it might not be the game for me. The point of this thread is to give it an honest shot.
Also, did you read how i defined strategy? I'm talking about things like maneuver and space control that i don't see as much in SC2.
Honestly I'm in the same boat. Except I enjoy watching SC2 more than I enjoy watching BW (As I never watched professional BW before SC2 came out) and the game I'm trying to enjoy watching more (at all) is LoL. So I feel your pain.
Starcraft 2 Pros aren't as good at Starcraft 2 as Brood War Pros are at Brood War. This is mainly due to the fact that SC2 hasn't been around as long as Brood War, which means - The game hasn't been balanced as well - The players haven't had as long to practice/learn the game When new generations of BW players turn up, they learn from the previous generation. This is pretty much the first generation of SC2 players, so they're finding everything out from scratch. Strategies and tactics will evolve. You either like how SC2 is played, or you don't. It's not a "comparision with Brood War". They are essentially different games. You either like SC2 as a game or you don't. If you do, then great. Stick around. If you don't then that's just too bad, there are other games to enjoy.
On April 09 2012 05:08 Gowerly wrote: Starcraft 2 Pros aren't as good at Starcraft 2 as Brood War Pros are at Brood War. This is mainly due to the fact that SC2 hasn't been around as long as Brood War, which means - The game hasn't been balanced as well - The players haven't had as long to practice/learn the game When new generations of BW players turn up, they learn from the previous generation. This is pretty much the first generation of SC2 players, so they're finding everything out from scratch. Strategies and tactics will evolve. You either like how SC2 is played, or you don't. It's not a "comparision with Brood War". They are essentially different games. You either like SC2 as a game or you don't. If you do, then great. Stick around. If you don't then that's just too bad, there are other games to enjoy.
Again, it's not an issue of liking it or not. It's me trying to like it more, to see depth i currently don't notice, and asking you guys to help me do so.
It's a good post, I think a lot of people will agree with most of your points. But I think I could sum up the general response with 'we know, we've known since just after the beta, we wish something could be done about it, we hope blizzard will listen, but we still love sc2.'
On April 09 2012 05:08 Gowerly wrote: Starcraft 2 Pros aren't as good at Starcraft 2 as Brood War Pros are at Brood War. This is mainly due to the fact that SC2 hasn't been around as long as Brood War, which means - The game hasn't been balanced as well - The players haven't had as long to practice/learn the game When new generations of BW players turn up, they learn from the previous generation. This is pretty much the first generation of SC2 players, so they're finding everything out from scratch. Strategies and tactics will evolve. You either like how SC2 is played, or you don't. It's not a "comparision with Brood War". They are essentially different games. You either like SC2 as a game or you don't. If you do, then great. Stick around. If you don't then that's just too bad, there are other games to enjoy.
further to this. watching sc2 evolve from mostly one based, shitty play to what it has become today is just amazing to see. you are watching "strategy" evolve rather than seeing a polished product like sc:bw.
On April 09 2012 05:08 Gowerly wrote: Starcraft 2 Pros aren't as good at Starcraft 2 as Brood War Pros are at Brood War. This is mainly due to the fact that SC2 hasn't been around as long as Brood War, which means - The game hasn't been balanced as well - The players haven't had as long to practice/learn the game When new generations of BW players turn up, they learn from the previous generation. This is pretty much the first generation of SC2 players, so they're finding everything out from scratch. Strategies and tactics will evolve. You either like how SC2 is played, or you don't. It's not a "comparision with Brood War". They are essentially different games. You either like SC2 as a game or you don't. If you do, then great. Stick around. If you don't then that's just too bad, there are other games to enjoy.
further to this. watching sc2 evolve from mostly one based, shitty play to what it has become today is just amazing to see. you are watching "strategy" evolve rather than seeing a polished product like sc:bw.
Exactly,that the main reason I watch sc2 nowadays.The evolution of the game is really interesting to observe and I'm kinda hopping it will still go a long way. So maybe it would be a good idea to suggest that you go dig out old beta vods and watch the kind of game it was and the kind of a game it is now lol.Its really shockingly different.
Good post death hobbit although I think it would help watching sc2 and not comparing it to bw and just take it as a different game and maybe just say it's warcraft 3 in space . Sc2 has different mechanics,different graphic,different units it definitely looks like starcraft but isn't although it does have the same name.
On April 09 2012 05:08 Gowerly wrote: Starcraft 2 Pros aren't as good at Starcraft 2 as Brood War Pros are at Brood War. This is mainly due to the fact that SC2 hasn't been around as long as Brood War, which means - The game hasn't been balanced as well - The players haven't had as long to practice/learn the game When new generations of BW players turn up, they learn from the previous generation. This is pretty much the first generation of SC2 players, so they're finding everything out from scratch. Strategies and tactics will evolve. You either like how SC2 is played, or you don't. It's not a "comparision with Brood War". They are essentially different games. You either like SC2 as a game or you don't. If you do, then great. Stick around. If you don't then that's just too bad, there are other games to enjoy.
further to this. watching sc2 evolve from mostly one based, shitty play to what it has become today is just amazing to see. you are watching "strategy" evolve rather than seeing a polished product like sc:bw.
Oh very much this. Early on in SC2 there was a lot of 1 and 2 base play, we've come so far since then. Heh.
I embrace the fact that SC2 is so new, I think the fact that its so unexplored makes it exciting! Its fun when suddenly some pro starts using a build I have been using for a long time, its fun when someone suddenly realizes that unit X is actually pretty decent in situation Y, and generally the constant shifts in the metagame is interesting to me. I guess my main point is that SC2 is something new you can explore for many years ahead!
On April 09 2012 05:06 hegeo wrote: Kind of stating the obvious here, but maybe SC2 isn't the right game for you. Plain and simple. And you shouldn't wait for balanced and serious discussion when your first point is:
Lack of Strategy – When I say “lack,” I mean relative to BW.
Doesn't mean I can't understand the general direction you're coming from, but there is a reason why threads about religion are practically banned on TL. And this here has a nice religious touch.
You're right, it might not be the game for me. The point of this thread is to give it an honest shot.
Also, did you read how i defined strategy? I'm talking about things like maneuver and space control that i don't see as much in SC2.
Sure, I read it. I read your whole post (this is what one should if one wants to comment .
In what you say about "strategy", I see your point, and I kind of agree.
But it's not about the way you define it, it is what people will see in it. It is like saying " You know, I'm a Christian, but I would really like to appreciate Buddhism more. But what I think is missing is 1) This good religious feeling. I'm defining religious feeling here as this "messias thing big plan of god" thing not this thing you call religious feeling."
On April 09 2012 05:08 Gowerly wrote: Starcraft 2 Pros aren't as good at Starcraft 2 as Brood War Pros are at Brood War. This is mainly due to the fact that SC2 hasn't been around as long as Brood War, which means - The game hasn't been balanced as well - The players haven't had as long to practice/learn the game When new generations of BW players turn up, they learn from the previous generation. This is pretty much the first generation of SC2 players, so they're finding everything out from scratch. Strategies and tactics will evolve. You either like how SC2 is played, or you don't. It's not a "comparision with Brood War". They are essentially different games. You either like SC2 as a game or you don't. If you do, then great. Stick around. If you don't then that's just too bad, there are other games to enjoy.
Again, it's not an issue of liking it or not. It's me trying to like it more, to see depth i currently don't notice, and asking you guys to help me do so.
If you need help and it is not apparent to you at the offset then you're in trouble. It is a case of liking it, but you're looking for reasons that you don't like it and trying to fix them. I doubt that this has ever worked or will work, really.
On April 09 2012 05:08 Gowerly wrote: Starcraft 2 Pros aren't as good at Starcraft 2 as Brood War Pros are at Brood War. This is mainly due to the fact that SC2 hasn't been around as long as Brood War, which means - The game hasn't been balanced as well - The players haven't had as long to practice/learn the game When new generations of BW players turn up, they learn from the previous generation. This is pretty much the first generation of SC2 players, so they're finding everything out from scratch. Strategies and tactics will evolve. You either like how SC2 is played, or you don't. It's not a "comparision with Brood War". They are essentially different games. You either like SC2 as a game or you don't. If you do, then great. Stick around. If you don't then that's just too bad, there are other games to enjoy.
further to this. watching sc2 evolve from mostly one based, shitty play to what it has become today is just amazing to see. you are watching "strategy" evolve rather than seeing a polished product like sc:bw.
Exactly,that the main reason I watch sc2 nowadays.The evolution of the game is really interesting to observe and I'm kinda hopping it will still go a long way.
Fair enough, and I have seen this in the SC2 i have watched. The game certainly has gotten better, and i do suspect it will continue to do so, but that fact doesn't make me want to watch the game today by itself.
I agree with all said statements. However, Starcraft 2 is open for a lot of good stories (Foreigners vs Koreans) and is of course more visually appealing. I would also like to state that Starcraft 2 is one third done. Wings of Liberty on the other hand, is finished. That being said, it took Blizzard to release and perfect Brood War to get it right. Give it some time.
On April 09 2012 05:08 Gowerly wrote: Starcraft 2 Pros aren't as good at Starcraft 2 as Brood War Pros are at Brood War. This is mainly due to the fact that SC2 hasn't been around as long as Brood War, which means - The game hasn't been balanced as well - The players haven't had as long to practice/learn the game When new generations of BW players turn up, they learn from the previous generation. This is pretty much the first generation of SC2 players, so they're finding everything out from scratch. Strategies and tactics will evolve. You either like how SC2 is played, or you don't. It's not a "comparision with Brood War". They are essentially different games. You either like SC2 as a game or you don't. If you do, then great. Stick around. If you don't then that's just too bad, there are other games to enjoy.
further to this. watching sc2 evolve from mostly one based, shitty play to what it has become today is just amazing to see. you are watching "strategy" evolve rather than seeing a polished product like sc:bw.
Exactly,that the main reason I watch sc2 nowadays.The evolution of the game is really interesting to observe and I'm kinda hopping it will still go a long way.
Fair enough, and I have seen this in the SC2 i have watched. The game certainly has gotten better, and i do suspect it will continue to do so, but that fact doesn't make me want to watch the game today by itself.
Hehe that's fine,come back in like a half a year or a year or so and see if its more to your liking than I don't really watch as much sc2 as I did before as well.There is no point really,a lot of games are just trash and a lot are just uninteresting but if there is a gem that pops up you can always go back and re watch it so you dont have to waste your time digging for gold.
My advice is to make better threads (keep the text though) and to just forget aboute starcraft in general and go play some other game competitively, cuz I can say with full confidence that starcraft 2 isnt gona get any harder.
The thing is I could make a nice post like yours with videos and analysis for SC2, and basically for any comptetitive game out there with some depth. In the end it's still a matter of taste, I appreciate the fact that BW is a great game, but I don't want to watch it.
I think a lot of your criticisms are coming from SC2 gone past. The game has evolved quite a bit. I haven't watched too much of IPL but look at Idra vs ...whichever Korean Terran this time (Jjakji?). Count how long his roaches spent poking and delaying the tank push under constant fire and you'll find it equals most brood war battles. Then look at what Stephano does with his zerglings that resembles so much of what Saviour did.
And don't forget blink stalker mirrors on the micro side. I once saw Huk on 50%hp handicap use 6 stalkers to beat 8.
Lastly its entirely possible that its just because the BW screen is far more zoomed in. In BW each individual unit/building occupies a much greater percentage of screen space than in SC2 which gives it a larger-scope feel.
EDIT: And remember things like Bisu's dragoon v mines micro are the rare exception. Today Soo had a grand total of 5 mutalisks on the map and nothing else. He still managed to mis-micro them and target the hatchery rather than drones and failed to dance around the spore colony.
I don't know why but even the a move units in brood war aren't boring to watch. Mass roach vs protoss is the most bland strategy ever and literally looks like a move fest. Mass hydra vs protoss in BW is also quite boring, but still tiers above the boringness that is mass roach. I don't know why tbh, maybe its the unit size, unit movement, the graphics, something.
On April 09 2012 05:18 CrtBalorda wrote: My advice is to make better threads (keep the text though) and to just forget aboute starcraft in general and go play some other game competitively, cuz I can say with full confidence that starcraft 2 isnt gona get any harder.
On April 09 2012 05:18 CrtBalorda wrote: My advice is to make better threads (keep the text though) and to just forget aboute starcraft in general and go play some other game competitively, cuz I can say with full confidence that starcraft 2 isnt gona get any harder.
I'm not interested in playing SC2, just like I'm not interested in playing BW.
On April 09 2012 05:18 Acertos wrote: Day9 is your friend man, watch his vod u will like this game after 10 commentated games.
Like i say in the post, I've watched almost every daily.
BW would still be good if they decided to address the UI and Graphics when releasing SC2 but they decided to completely change the game and BW just had no where to go but change game completely(as in pro's go play SC2 or kill it off themselves) or to continue. They choose to continue. All westerners fell in love with SC2, boom BW gets "forgotten" about (BW fans turned into SC2 fans, or the BW fans only remained in the western world as hardcore fans and many just didn't follow it anymore)
For me personally, id watch BW any day of the week IF it had a decent UI and graphics...thats the only reason i fail to like it as many people do. Lemmings and Worms have 100x better graphics than BW and thus the reason i cannot watch it.
Today i watched Bisu vs Flash in the SK vs KT Ace match, and it was fun but i could not follow it for every tournament like i do with SC2 (well most)
Conclusion; i hope BW pro's come over to SC2 and make the lives of the gamers in SC2 realise how far away they are from the top level still and so the likes of flash jaedong bisu etcetctc can have a peice of the pie that SC2 has got to give. (lots of moneys to be made)
On April 09 2012 05:19 Micket wrote: I don't know why but even the a move units in brood war aren't boring to watch. Mass roach vs protoss is the most bland strategy ever and literally looks like a move fest. Mass hydra vs protoss in BW is also quite boring, but still tiers above the boringness that is mass roach. I don't know why tbh, maybe its the unit size, unit movement, the graphics, something.
On April 09 2012 05:19 Micket wrote: I don't know why but even the a move units in brood war aren't boring to watch. Mass roach vs protoss is the most bland strategy ever and literally looks like a move fest. Mass hydra vs protoss in BW is also quite boring, but still tiers above the boringness that is mass roach. I don't know why tbh, maybe its the unit size, unit movement, the graphics, something.
This is pure nostalgia.
What if I told you that I only started watching BW after sc2 came out.
Many people have said it already, but as someone who previously watched and played SC:BW and now watches and plays SC2, I have to stress that I think your first point, "lack of strategy", is simply not true. It might have been more true months ago, when the game seemed to be a lot more rock-paper-scissors-based and strategies as well as game understanding was not as developed. I am not really sure how to convince you on this point thought. But as an example, take your description of the recent Fantasy vs Flash game. You will find similar early push into containment into timely retreat vs tech into map positioning etc. scenarios in many high level TvTs, PvPs and to some extent in PvTs. One thing that (I think) is really still lacking in SC2 is commentators pointing out these things correctly. Some do a good job at this, but many will not commentate on the crucial strategic decisions happening in the background. I often find myself thinking and/or appreciating things that I would not understand if i was not playing the game myself.
Your points 2) and 3) I feel are somewhat valid. But SC2 seems to be improving on both fronts as time goes by as well. The rather boring no action into 200vs200 army battle-style games are much less common now. The overall easier macro in SC2 and the higher rate of unit production/larger armies probably reduce the effects of micro of individual units. The make the overall army positioning extremely important though, and don't away from the fact that high APM will increase your skill and the effectiveness of your army.
On April 09 2012 05:23 Wildmoon wrote: Somehow I find TvT and TvZ in SC2 more fun than in BW.
Why
for tvt, siege lines. bio and mech are both available in tvt, which makes the game more interesting.
Fair enough. Besides what's already come up, are there any TvT's in particular you'd recommend checking out.
If you are looking for exciting play I definitely agree that you should check TvT and TvZ. Those are the only matchups that have some sort of positional play due to Siege Tanks being still relevant in those matchups.
On April 09 2012 05:23 Wildmoon wrote: Somehow I find TvT and TvZ in SC2 more fun than in BW.
Why
for tvt, siege lines. bio and mech are both available in tvt, which makes the game more interesting.
Fair enough. Besides what's already come up, are there any TvT's in particular you'd recommend checking out.
unfortunately, no. i dont keep track of games/vods, and there is no small vod thread (best part of the sc:bw forum imo). i could only recommend names, but that wouldnt be terribly helpful for you. IPL is about to have a bunch of tvts though in the next couple hours. maybe they will be good.
On April 09 2012 05:19 Micket wrote: I don't know why but even the a move units in brood war aren't boring to watch. Mass roach vs protoss is the most bland strategy ever and literally looks like a move fest. Mass hydra vs protoss in BW is also quite boring, but still tiers above the boringness that is mass roach. I don't know why tbh, maybe its the unit size, unit movement, the graphics, something.
This is pure nostalgia.
What if I told you that I only started watching BW after sc2 came out.
On April 09 2012 05:23 Wildmoon wrote: Somehow I find TvT and TvZ in SC2 more fun than in BW.
Why
for tvt, siege lines. bio and mech are both available in tvt, which makes the game more interesting.
Fair enough. Besides what's already come up, are there any TvT's in particular you'd recommend checking out.
Just a warning. Ignore the people that tell you to watch Boxer vs Rain on meta.lol
Was that the super long game in MLG? I saw that, and it reminded me of super late game TvT in BW. The sort of game that rarely comes up, and is only entertaining to watch because it is so rare.
On April 09 2012 05:28 antiRW wrote: Many people have said it already, but as someone who previously watched and played SC:BW and now watches and plays SC2, I have to stress that I think your first point, "lack of strategy", is simply not true. It might have been more true months ago, when the game seemed to be a lot more rock-paper-scissors-based and strategies as well as game understanding was not as developed. I am not really sure how to convince you on this point thought. But as an example, take your description of the recent Fantasy vs Flash game. You will find similar early push into containment into timely retread vs tech into map positioning etc. scenarios in many high level TvTs, PvPs and to some extent in PvTs. One thing that (I think) is really still lacking in SC2 is commentators pointing out these things correctly. Some do a good job at this, but many will not commentate on the crucial strategic decisions happening in the background. I often find myself thinking and/or appreciating things that I would not understand if i was not playing the game myself.
Your points 2) and 3) I feel are somewhat valid. But SC2 seems to be improving on both fronts as time goes by as well. The rather boring no action into 200vs200 army battle-style games are much less common now. The overall easier macro in SC2 and the higher rate of unit production/larger armies probably reduce the effects of micro of individual units. The make the overall army positioning extremely important though, and don't away from the fact that high APM will increase your skill and the effectiveness of your army.
Again, if you think it's untrue, i would appreciate VODS. Remember, i want to be wrong.
On April 09 2012 05:23 Wildmoon wrote: Somehow I find TvT and TvZ in SC2 more fun than in BW.
Why
for tvt, siege lines. bio and mech are both available in tvt, which makes the game more interesting.
Fair enough. Besides what's already come up, are there any TvT's in particular you'd recommend checking out.
Just a warning. Ignore the people that tell you to watch Boxer vs Rain on meta.lol
Was that the super long game in MLG? I saw that, and it reminded me of super late game TvT in BW. The sort of game that rarely comes up, and is only entertaining to watch because it is so rare.
It was like 2 Canata's playing against each other.
On April 09 2012 05:23 Wildmoon wrote: Somehow I find TvT and TvZ in SC2 more fun than in BW.
Why
for tvt, siege lines. bio and mech are both available in tvt, which makes the game more interesting.
Fair enough. Besides what's already come up, are there any TvT's in particular you'd recommend checking out.
I think bio mech has been available for bw but it is rarely used in TvT although Sea pulled these bio mech strategy really well and I really wish all bw TvT games would incorporate bio and mech together despite tanks being pretty good at what they do .
On April 09 2012 05:19 Micket wrote: I don't know why but even the a move units in brood war aren't boring to watch. Mass roach vs protoss is the most bland strategy ever and literally looks like a move fest. Mass hydra vs protoss in BW is also quite boring, but still tiers above the boringness that is mass roach. I don't know why tbh, maybe its the unit size, unit movement, the graphics, something.
This is pure nostalgia.
What if I told you that I only started watching BW after sc2 came out.
Then maybe you're just pretentious?
You said it yourself, you can't even rationalize your opinion.
the point is have you ever seen 2 or 3 battles going on in sc2? hardly most time its ball vs ball no flanking hardly any army split (1 army attacking 1 base and the other army defending the own base)
comments like this show you dont watch enough SC2 to criticize it for what you think it doesn't have
possible plz send me links to VODS where i can see such actions
On April 09 2012 05:23 Wildmoon wrote: Somehow I find TvT and TvZ in SC2 more fun than in BW.
Why
for tvt, siege lines. bio and mech are both available in tvt, which makes the game more interesting.
Fair enough. Besides what's already come up, are there any TvT's in particular you'd recommend checking out.
I think bio mech has been available for bw but it is rarely used in TvT although Sea pulled these bio mech strategy really well and I really wish all bw TvT games would incorporate bio and mech together despite tanks being pretty good at what they do .
Sawamura I remember watching a Boxer game vod in which he did some I think bio mech with proxy raxing and than he walled off exits with supply depos and transitioned into tank contain.Do you know the game I mean,can you link me it or PM it I forgot where I found it zzzzzzz wanna see it again.I can't remember who it was against as well sigh.
the point is have you ever seen 2 or 3 battles going on in sc2? hardly most time its ball vs ball no flanking hardly any army split (1 army attacking 1 base and the other army defending the own base)
comments like this show you dont watch enough SC2 to criticize it for what you think it doesn't have
possible plz send me links to VODS where i can see such actions
Yeah, there's no helping you. Your post is nothing more than a bunch of "I'm not trying to say SC2 is a shitty game, but it is because of these reasons from a year and a half ago." If you've seriously seen every Day9 daily then you've seen SC2 strategy evolve from the one-base cheeses and pushes into what it is today. And if you can't at least appreciate that level of evolution in about two years then I can't help you.
As far as the "battles are too fast," that's like criticizing American Football for having short bursts of plays (the actual downs) followed by pauses (1st down finished, wait to set up 2nd down, 2nd down finished, wait to set up 3rd down). You're just going to have to accept it as a part of the game. I can't make you accept it.
And if you refuse to look for good micro then you're not going to find it. I know you dismissed it, but MKP marine micro is godly, HuK blink micro, and DRG's control are all good examples.
You're looking for 12 years of refinement in a 2 year old game I think. And if you're not, then I don't know what you want. It honestly sounds like a thinly veiled bitch post about SC2 that I'm surprised the mods haven't closed yet for being troll bait.
Honestly I don't think you're going to get much out of the responses in this thread, even tho your post is very well done and explains the differences of what makes BW exciting for you while not bashing it. But the fan boys can't see through that, sadly.
I agree with you completely, I been a fan of BW since 2000 and i've had my times where i don't really pay too much attention to the scene but I've seen a slow and gradual evolution in the game. SC2 is not going down that path, we won't get slower games with more strategic fights cause SC2 is all Ball vs Ball, sadly. People who think Hots or Legacy will bring that, you're delusional, BW isn't like that cause the game "got figured out" no it was cause the game had different mechanics and a slower pace 4-5 new units from the new expansions won't change that. It will still be mass of stalkers with colossus vs MMM. Unless Blizz does some drastic changes to the game, SC2 will be SC2 and not a clone of BW.
I'm not bashing, I am just as disappointed as any other BW fan about this. I watched GSL ever since it started but around september it got boring for me, so i started watching Pro league again and omg it was so exciting again >.< I couldn't believe it, it was great. All these differences that weren't obvious to me before, are now, which is pretty much what the OP said. I have no idea why I didn't noticed before and there was nothing wrong with SC2, but after I noticed all those details it did become a lot less entertaining.
Something I do miss dearly is all those BW Highlight videos, those were so awesome and such a great display of skill of the players. Those don't exist in SC2, why? cause there is nothing particularly skilful about micro in SC2, any pro or semi pro can do those things, so there is no :O shock factor about seeing some sick micro like it was in BW where only a handful of people could pull it off. Anyone who likes BW and watches BW will understand what I'm talking about, if you haven't i suggest you go check out a few games, they are great fun to watch. Don't just tell me I'm bashing your favourite game just to bash it, if you don't understand BW plz just don't.
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.
The problem with threads like this is that almost everyone whiteknighting SC2 have barely watched any BW, and anyone going on about how awesome BW is has probably barely watched any SC2.
BW players will hate SC2 for as long as they expect it to be "BW with better graphics", and not settle for anything different. They are simply not comparable at the current time. They are different games.
imo the best example's of bw-style play in sc2 all come from korean terrans who were famous from brood war. although they might not be the best their games seem much more thought out from start to finish than the "new" starcraft players. an example would be forgg. he streams a lot and while he mostly cheeses, he always has solid transitions back into normal play and his unit composition and positioning just seem...more intelligent somehow than other terrans.
so myabe the problem isnt sc2, its the current mentality of the people who play sc2
On April 09 2012 05:19 Micket wrote: I don't know why but even the a move units in brood war aren't boring to watch. Mass roach vs protoss is the most bland strategy ever and literally looks like a move fest. Mass hydra vs protoss in BW is also quite boring, but still tiers above the boringness that is mass roach. I don't know why tbh, maybe its the unit size, unit movement, the graphics, something.
This is pure nostalgia.
What if I told you that I only started watching BW after sc2 came out.
Then maybe you're just pretentious?
You said it yourself, you can't even rationalize your opinion.
Perhaps, but I don't have an ulterior motive in my opinion, just simply making an observation. I'm simply saying that the equivalence of the blandest unit in Sc2, is borderline not snoozefest in BW.
I would say that marines are sexier in sc2 though, although that is because of there are more ways to micro them.
On April 09 2012 05:23 Wildmoon wrote: Somehow I find TvT and TvZ in SC2 more fun than in BW.
Why
for tvt, siege lines. bio and mech are both available in tvt, which makes the game more interesting.
Fair enough. Besides what's already come up, are there any TvT's in particular you'd recommend checking out.
I think bio mech has been available for bw but it is rarely used in TvT although Sea pulled these bio mech strategy really well and I really wish all bw TvT games would incorporate bio and mech together despite tanks being pretty good at what they do .
Sawamura I remember watching a Boxer game vod in which he did some I think bio mech with proxy raxing and than he walled off exits with supply depos and transitioned into tank contain.Do you know the game I mean,can you link me it or PM it I forgot where I found it zzzzzzz wanna see it again.
On April 09 2012 05:34 Mauldo wrote: Yeah, there's no helping you. Your post is nothing more than a bunch of "I'm not trying to say SC2 is a shitty game, but it is because of these reasons from a year and a half ago." If you've seriously seen every Day9 daily then you've seen SC2 strategy evolve from the one-base cheeses and pushes into what it is today. And if you can't at least appreciate that level of evolution in about two years then I can't help you.
As far as the "battles are too fast," that's like criticizing American Football for having short bursts of plays (the actual downs) followed by pauses (1st down finished, wait to set up 2nd down, 2nd down finished, wait to set up 3rd down). You're just going to have to accept it as a part of the game. I can't make you accept it.
And if you refuse to look for good micro then you're not going to find it. I know you dismissed it, but MKP marine micro is godly, HuK blink micro, and DRG's control are all good examples.
You're looking for 12 years of refinement in a 2 year old game I think. And if you're not, then I don't know what you want. It honestly sounds like a thinly veiled bitch post about SC2 that I'm surprised the mods haven't closed yet for being troll bait.
I haven't seen every daily, just most.
And you're right, i have seen the game evolve. I just still don't enjoy it as much as BW in spite of that evolution.
It's not that i don't look for good micro, it's that i don't see it. Tell me what to look for, and cite games.
On April 09 2012 05:23 Wildmoon wrote: Somehow I find TvT and TvZ in SC2 more fun than in BW.
Why
for tvt, siege lines. bio and mech are both available in tvt, which makes the game more interesting.
Fair enough. Besides what's already come up, are there any TvT's in particular you'd recommend checking out.
I think bio mech has been available for bw but it is rarely used in TvT although Sea pulled these bio mech strategy really well and I really wish all bw TvT games would incorporate bio and mech together despite tanks being pretty good at what they do .
Sawamura I remember watching a Boxer game vod in which he did some I think bio mech with proxy raxing and than he walled off exits with supply depos and transitioned into tank contain.Do you know the game I mean,can you link me it or PM it I forgot where I found it zzzzzzz wanna see it again.
On April 09 2012 05:28 antiRW wrote: Many people have said it already, but as someone who previously watched and played SC:BW and now watches and plays SC2, I have to stress that I think your first point, "lack of strategy", is simply not true. It might have been more true months ago, when the game seemed to be a lot more rock-paper-scissors-based and strategies as well as game understanding was not as developed. I am not really sure how to convince you on this point thought. But as an example, take your description of the recent Fantasy vs Flash game. You will find similar early push into containment into timely retread vs tech into map positioning etc. scenarios in many high level TvTs, PvPs and to some extent in PvTs. One thing that (I think) is really still lacking in SC2 is commentators pointing out these things correctly. Some do a good job at this, but many will not commentate on the crucial strategic decisions happening in the background. I often find myself thinking and/or appreciating things that I would not understand if i was not playing the game myself.
Your points 2) and 3) I feel are somewhat valid. But SC2 seems to be improving on both fronts as time goes by as well. The rather boring no action into 200vs200 army battle-style games are much less common now. The overall easier macro in SC2 and the higher rate of unit production/larger armies probably reduce the effects of micro of individual units. The make the overall army positioning extremely important though, and don't away from the fact that high APM will increase your skill and the effectiveness of your army.
Again, if you think it's untrue, i would appreciate VODS. Remember, i want to be wrong. [/QUOTE]
I know you said that you want to "be wrong" and I do not think I have implied otherwise. In my opinion one finds the same kind of strategy in SC2 that you described in BW. Maybe I just don't fully understand what you think is missing. Thus I am not sure what kind of games to use as examples. Maybe the MMA vs MVP GSL finals? MMA designed his aggressive and versatile overall game strategy to specifically counter MVPs play. Or Kiwikaki vs Stephano on Shattered Temple - not sure from which tournament - where Kiwikaki uses the mobility granted by mothership vortex to control Stephano's economy with hit-and-run tactics until he is ready for the final push (even though I hate how this game concludes).
On April 09 2012 04:53 WArped wrote: Did you see the GSTL final game between MKP and Parting last night? Did you watch the GSL finals last season and the season before that? The finals at Blizzcon and the final between Mvp and MMA? Every season of the GSL Code S you find great games between top players that are back and forth, nail biting and extremely close. The GSTL has some great series' that are also very back and forth, have well calculated cheese and close defensive games with great come-backs. I am also a fan of BW but I have never even thought of comparing the two because they are very different. Trust me, I've seen very boring games of broodwar and games that you find play that is just very lackluster. There are more games of SC2 to watch so of course you will find unexciting games from time to time.
I haven't seen those games, and I'm hesitant to pay to watch SC2 at this point. Are there any other games you would recommend?
The Blizzard Cup final, GSL May Semi final between sCfou and NesTea and the GSTL May final between SlayerS and Mvp.
DRG vs MMA game 7 in their final...
The whole series is epic and it defines what the OP is looking for.
On April 09 2012 05:36 MCXD wrote: The problem with threads like this is that almost everyone whiteknighting SC2 have barely watched any BW, and anyone going on about how awesome BW is have barely watched any SC2.
BW players will hate SC2 for as long as they expect it to be "BW with better graphics", and not settle for anything different. They are simply not comparable at the current time. They are different games.
Though I will say that the BW community is heck of a lot better than the SC2 community. All you have to do is compare the IPL/GSL LR threads to the OSL/SPL LR threads.
This is an excellent post, up until the third paragraph. Why bring such a point up in here? Is your assumption that he does not enjoy SC2 as much because of the community. If that is not your argument, then let us try not to start a BW vs SC2 community discussion in here (whether or not your are right).
On April 09 2012 05:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Wait, so OP doesn't like SC2, and he wants us to change his mind by posting VOD's of pros playing really well? Is that it?
And claims it is NOT his intent to create a SC2 vs. BW thread, yes.
On April 09 2012 05:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Wait, so OP doesn't like SC2, and he wants us to change his mind by posting VOD's of pros playing really well? Is that it?
OP doesn't like SC2 half as much he likes BW. He discusses why he feels this way, and is asking for VODs that demonstrate things he feels are missing in SC2 are in fact there.
So essentially, yes.
EDIT - Also, emphasis on wanting to have my mind changed. It's not a challenge, it's a request.
Actually, I've just thought of something. Just watch the Koreans play and not the NA players or Europeans. EU players just sit and turtle (or 2 base all in), send blobs in and the game is over. NA players are just slightly worse versions of the EU players (but some have funky styles if you are in to that). The koreans (especially T) are the true entertainers of starcraft 2.
Personally, I find EU and NA players entertaining to watch as well, but I'm probably more easily pleased that you are.
On April 09 2012 05:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Wait, so OP doesn't like SC2, and he wants us to change his mind by posting VOD's of pros playing really well? Is that it?
And claims it is NOT his intent to create a SC2 vs. BW thread, yes.
And we've more or less managed to do so for 8 pages now. When you keep things civil you can have good discussions, even on the internet.
On April 09 2012 05:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Wait, so OP doesn't like SC2, and he wants us to change his mind by posting VOD's of pros playing really well? Is that it?
Basically. Terrible thread. They're both great games, and each of them have their own positives & negatives.
On April 09 2012 05:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Wait, so OP doesn't like SC2, and he wants us to change his mind by posting VOD's of pros playing really well? Is that it?
Basically. Terrible thread. They're both great games, and each of them have their own positives & negatives.
Well then, what positives of SC2 do you feel i am not appreciating?
On April 09 2012 05:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote: No amount of VODs is going to change anyone's mind.
I'm pretty sure there's at least one person out there who didn't want to watch SC2 till a friend showed them vods. I want my mind to be changed, give it a go.
You're being very polite but if you don't like SC2 nobody is going to say anything that will convince you otherwise. Play and watch it more if you want to give it more of a chance.
On April 09 2012 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You're being very polite but if you don't like SC2 nobody is going to say anything that will convince you otherwise. Play and watch it more if you want to give it more of a chance.
I'm not interested in playing it, and I've watched it since it came out. And again, it's not that i don't like SC2, only that i like it much less than i like BW. I'm open to the possibility that i may not be fully appreciating the game, and am asking people to help me do so.
The OP just seems like a veiled attempt to bring down SC2 and bait SC2 fans into arguments that the OP feels he can win. The reasons he gives that he doesn't like SC2 are inherent in SC2's game design and there's obviously no changing or disputing it. For example there's obviously no way to convince the OP that SC2 has more micro than BW, and he knows that. For him to demand that we provide SC2 VODs that refute his arguments is just him saying "na na, you can't do it." If the OP has been watching SC2 since early beta, and even has watched most Dailies, he clearly is familiar with all the BW vs SC2 arguments and talking points. There are no arguments that are going to come up in this thread that haven't already been discussed ad nauseum on TL.
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.
I've always felt that bw is substantially better to watch while sc2 is a lot more fun to play. Most bw games have me on the edge of my seat from start to finish. Very few sc2 matches have put me on the edge of my seat, and when they have its just for a few moments. There aren't that many magical moments in sc2 right now but I have high hopes that Blizzard will improve on this in future expansions. My biggest beef with sc2 is the unit clumping, I will never approve of it. It's one of the many reasons bw is substantially better to watch as a spectator. I agree with the sentiments of the OP, well written.
On April 09 2012 05:51 Doodsmack wrote: The OP just seems like a veiled attempt to bring down SC2 and bait SC2 fans into arguments that the OP feels he can win. The reasons he gives that he doesn't like SC2 are inherent in SC2's game design and there's obviously no changing or disputing it. For example there's obviously no way to convince the OP that SC2 has more micro than BW, and he knows that. For him to demand that we provide SC2 VODs that refute his arguments is just him saying "na na, you can't do it." There are no arguments that are going to come up in this thread that haven't already been discussed ad nauseum on TL.
Do you honestly think I'd put this much effort into a thinly veiled trolling attempt? Trust me, i have better things to do with my life than annoy people on the internet.
On April 09 2012 05:51 Doodsmack wrote: The OP just seems like a veiled attempt to bring down SC2 and bait SC2 fans into arguments that the OP feels he can win. The reasons he gives that he doesn't like SC2 are inherent in SC2's game design and there's obviously no changing or disputing it. For example there's obviously no way to convince the OP that SC2 has more micro than BW, and he knows that. For him to demand that we provide SC2 VODs that refute his arguments is just him saying "na na, you can't do it." There are no arguments that are going to come up in this thread that haven't already been discussed ad nauseum on TL.
Do you honestly think I'd put this much effort into a thinly veiled trolling attempt? Trust me, i have better things to do with my life than annoy people on the internet.
I honestly believe as it is, the spectator value of SC2 is exponentially smaller than BW. I have become so bored with watching SC2 I don't even bother checking up on games anymore unless there's a particular player or team I want to see play.
The game itself barely attracts my attention anymore.
On April 09 2012 05:51 Doodsmack wrote: The OP just seems like a veiled attempt to bring down SC2 and bait SC2 fans into arguments that the OP feels he can win. The reasons he gives that he doesn't like SC2 are inherent in SC2's game design and there's obviously no changing or disputing it. For example there's obviously no way to convince the OP that SC2 has more micro than BW, and he knows that. For him to demand that we provide SC2 VODs that refute his arguments is just him saying "na na, you can't do it." There are no arguments that are going to come up in this thread that haven't already been discussed ad nauseum on TL.
Do you honestly think I'd put this much effort into a thinly veiled trolling attempt? Trust me, i have better things to do with my life than annoy people on the internet.
On April 09 2012 05:57 Acertos wrote: look at nestea vs stephano on ipl u will see micro
I have it on, but for now I'm more focused on trying to keep the discussion in this thread civil. So far, by continuously posting polite comments I've kept things productive, but i suspect that if i stop things will go downhill. I've gotten some good recommendations so far, and I want to keep them coming.
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.
1. english. tip top games are available to see in english immediately. GOM cares about the english speaking community (or at least our money), but KESPA, OGN, MBC, etc. dont seem to. so you get high quality content in a language you understand. 2. koreans interact with foreigners. its not this korean vs foreigner mentality as much as sc:bw. koreans are on foreign teams. koreans and non-koreans are sharing practice houses (OGS/TL, Slayers/EG, etc.). this is almost unheard of in BW. sure, they had token players (e.g., Idra at the end), but its not like the foreigners had a real place on the team. the only time you saw foreigner vs korean was WCG, and WCG was a piece of shit tournament. 3. bw is dying (or dead). so, it is either give up on your favorite players (who are rumored to be coming to SC2 and LoL/DOTA2/Etc.) and starcraft, or make the switch.
On April 09 2012 05:36 MCXD wrote: The problem with threads like this is that almost everyone whiteknighting SC2 have barely watched any BW, and anyone going on about how awesome BW is have barely watched any SC2.
BW players will hate SC2 for as long as they expect it to be "BW with better graphics", and not settle for anything different. They are simply not comparable at the current time. They are different games.
Though I will say that the BW community is heck of a lot better than the SC2 community. All you have to do is compare the IPL/GSL LR threads to the OSL/SPL LR threads.
This is an excellent post, up until the third paragraph. Why bring such a point up in here? Is your assumption that he does not enjoy SC2 as much because of the community. If that is not your argument, then let us try not to start a BW vs SC2 community discussion in here (whether or not your are right).
On April 09 2012 05:57 Acertos wrote: look at nestea vs stephano on ipl u will see micro
I have it on, but for now I'm more focused on trying to keep the discussion in this thread civil. So far, by continuously posting polite comments I've kept things productive, but i suspect that if i stop things will go downhill. I've gotten some good recommendations so far, and I want to keep them coming.
Your persistance has convinced me that you are, in fact, not trolling. I was at fault for reading of the title as 'Please help me, I'm trying so hard to like SC2, but its just too bad.'
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.
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.
On April 09 2012 05:51 Doodsmack wrote: The OP just seems like a veiled attempt to bring down SC2 and bait SC2 fans into arguments that the OP feels he can win. The reasons he gives that he doesn't like SC2 are inherent in SC2's game design and there's obviously no changing or disputing it. For example there's obviously no way to convince the OP that SC2 has more micro than BW, and he knows that. For him to demand that we provide SC2 VODs that refute his arguments is just him saying "na na, you can't do it." There are no arguments that are going to come up in this thread that haven't already been discussed ad nauseum on TL.
Do you honestly think I'd put this much effort into a thinly veiled trolling attempt? Trust me, i have better things to do with my life than annoy people on the internet.
I didn't say it's a trolling attempt. It's more purposeful than trolling. You're basically trying to win arguments against SC2 fans and convince them that their game is inferior. Do you really expect us to believe that after watching SC2 since EARLY BETA, you haven't seen all the counterarguments to your laundry list of its shortcomings. You made this thread for people to convince you that SC2 battles take longer than BW battles?
When the GSTL or IPL4 release VODs from last night's GSTL Finals, watch game 1 of Parting vs MarineKingPrime. Really sick matches. Also, check these two VODs out. MKP's build and unit control are unreal. And then Naniwa vs Huk with the base race has a ton of micro. Just a few matches with sick micro off the time of my head.
On April 09 2012 05:36 MCXD wrote: The problem with threads like this is that almost everyone whiteknighting SC2 have barely watched any BW, and anyone going on about how awesome BW is have barely watched any SC2.
BW players will hate SC2 for as long as they expect it to be "BW with better graphics", and not settle for anything different. They are simply not comparable at the current time. They are different games.
Though I will say that the BW community is heck of a lot better than the SC2 community. All you have to do is compare the IPL/GSL LR threads to the OSL/SPL LR threads.
This is an excellent post, up until the third paragraph. Why bring such a point up in here? Is your assumption that he does not enjoy SC2 as much because of the community. If that is not your argument, then let us try not to start a BW vs SC2 community discussion in here (whether or not your are right).
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).
On April 09 2012 05:51 Doodsmack wrote: The OP just seems like a veiled attempt to bring down SC2 and bait SC2 fans into arguments that the OP feels he can win. The reasons he gives that he doesn't like SC2 are inherent in SC2's game design and there's obviously no changing or disputing it. For example there's obviously no way to convince the OP that SC2 has more micro than BW, and he knows that. For him to demand that we provide SC2 VODs that refute his arguments is just him saying "na na, you can't do it." There are no arguments that are going to come up in this thread that haven't already been discussed ad nauseum on TL.
Do you honestly think I'd put this much effort into a thinly veiled trolling attempt? Trust me, i have better things to do with my life than annoy people on the internet.
I didn't say it's a trolling attempt. It's more purposeful than trolling. You're basically trying to win arguments against SC2 fans and convince them that their game is inferior. Do you really expect us to believe that after watching SC2 since EARLY BETA, you haven't seen all the counterarguments to your laundry list of its shortcomings. You made this thread for people to convince you that SC2 battles take longer than BW battles?
If believing this makes you feel good about yourself, feel free. All I'd ask is that you find a quote of me in this thread actively arguing with a SC2 fan before you decide that is my intention.
On April 09 2012 06:06 CPTBadAss wrote: When the GSTL or IPL4 release VODs from last night's GSTL Finals, watch game 1 of Parting vs MarineKingPrime. Really sick matches. Also, check these two VODs out. MKP's build and unit control are unreal. And then Naniwa vs Huk with the base race has a ton of micro. Just a few matches with sick micro off the time of my head.
On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote: SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
This is the main reason I won't try BW. Who knows where SC2 will be in 10 years and if it will stand up to BW or not. But being part of the scene as the game grows and changes is so exciting I don't want to stop being a part of that.
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.
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...
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.
nobody would play sc:bw patch 1.0 over sc2 patch 1.0.
I didn't refer specifically to the patch, but rather to the time period.
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.
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.
nobody would play sc:bw patch 1.0 over sc2 patch 1.0.
I didn't refer specifically to the patch, but rather to the time period.
yeah, my statement was a bit vague. what i meant was that if the two games came out at the same time, nobody would watch sc:bw over sc2. it doesnt really matter though. the thread isnt a sc2 vs bw thread like i originally thought the OP was trying to incite.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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 06:01 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?
This is a dangerous thread which will most likely deteriorate into the usual flame war, however i will throw in my opinion all the same.
I myself never really played BW that much, and only started taking an interest with the release of SC2, however i do agree with most of your points. I prefer watch BW games to Sc2 games as i really can see the difference in skill and tactics.
Just today i watched a game of SSak v Crazy Hydra, where CH fought back to win the game from what looked like a lost cause. Had the game been SC2 he would never have fought his way back and win. I really do think SC2 is way too much of a coin flip in nature , but do hope the expansions resolve this problem.
We shall never know until we get a few more years of gameplay behind us i guess
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.
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.
Bleak, Fyrewolf, and Daphreak. That was one page worth.
Fyrewolf gave a very good explanation for each point you brought up. You seem ignorant of SC2, thinking that there is no strategy and no micro.
If you think that, thats fine, you don't like SC2 very much. Cool. Accept that you will not be convinced otherwise. Or stop trolling.
theres your positioning and splitting armies and all that jazz
Or stop trolling.
he's not trolling, he's just being passive aggressive, dismissive, condescending, and constantly repeating "evidence pls" "point me to VODs please" "i want to enjoy sc2 now" oh wait that is trolling? you dont say.
On April 09 2012 06:21 Topdoller wrote: This is a dangerous thread which will most likely deteriorate into the usual flame war, however i will throw in my opinion all the same.
I myself never really played BW that much, and only started taking an interest with the release of SC2, however i do agree with most of your points. I prefer watch BW games to Sc2 games as i really can see the difference in skill and tactics.
Just today i watched a game of SSak v Crazy Hydra, where CH fought back to win the game from what looked like a lost cause. Had the game been SC2 he would never have fought his way back and win. I really do think SC2 is way too much of a coin flip in nature , but do hope the expansions resolve this problem.
We shall never know until we get a few more years of gameplay behind us i guess
It probably will go downhill eventually, but my hope is by actively posting and attempting to keep things civil some good might still come from it before that happens.
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.
Bleak, Fyrewolf, and Daphreak. That was one page worth.
Fyrewolf gave a very good explanation for each point you brought up. You seem ignorant of SC2, thinking that there is no strategy and no micro.
If you think that, thats fine, you don't like SC2 very much. Cool. Accept that you will not be convinced otherwise. Or stop trolling.
Yes, i am ignorant of SC2. That's why i made this thread.
Also, he said i ignored people who posted VODS, and to the best of my knowledge I've thanked all of them. If i missed some I'm sorry, and i hope the profuse thanks I've given to other vod posters have been noticed.
Also, since when does engaging in polite discussion qualify as trolling?
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.
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.
OP is too busy trying to troll and make it look like he isn't trolling to watch SC2.
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.
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.
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 06:01 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.
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.
posting in this thread is not as good as watching IPL.
On April 09 2012 06:21 Topdoller wrote: This is a dangerous thread which will most likely deteriorate into the usual flame war, however i will throw in my opinion all the same.
I myself never really played BW that much, and only started taking an interest with the release of SC2, however i do agree with most of your points. I prefer watch BW games to Sc2 games as i really can see the difference in skill and tactics.
Just today i watched a game of SSak v Crazy Hydra, where CH fought back to win the game from what looked like a lost cause. Had the game been SC2 he would never have fought his way back and win. I really do think SC2 is way too much of a coin flip in nature , but do hope the expansions resolve this problem.
We shall never know until we get a few more years of gameplay behind us i guess
It probably will go downhill eventually, but my hope is by actively posting and attempting to keep things civil some good might still come from it before that happens.
I think you did quite a good job so far. Problem is you will have to sleep eventually. There should be heavily moderated threads for these BW/SC2-things. Maybe some kind of liquipedia (also, curated). With discussion before something is posted. Maybe a "post once in 24h"-thread ?
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 06:01 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.
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 06:01 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 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 06:23 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.
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.
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 06:01 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 06:01 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 06:01 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 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.
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 06:01 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...
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 06:01 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 06:01 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 06:01 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
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)
On April 09 2012 06:54 Supah wrote: 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.
Thank you. It's getting kind of annoying when people complain about me not answering their arguments when I'm not here to argue.
On April 09 2012 06:56 Durp wrote: 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
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)
Thanks, I'll check those out. Again though, VOD's i don't have to pay for are appreciated.
I think what makes me enjoy starcraft 2 alot more, is the face that its not just a korean sport, i mean most koreans are better, but we still have 2-5 players that can always upset.
The post was well written, and I applaud your intent with it, but there are a couple issues that I have here.
First and foremost, telling us how we can convince you of something kind of defeats the purpose. If you have any desire to continue hating sc2 you're going to have specific arguments prepared to combat whatever arguments we ourselves put in place. It's like saying "Ok, lets play this game, but I only want you to play using this keyboard that has a very specific hotkey layout, and if you don't use that hotkey layout I'm not going to accept the defeat." It kind of puts people on the defensive before they've even read your arguments.
That being said, I do respect that you put forth the effort and I genuinely believe the post was made with the intent to get a positive reaction from the community, and to learn a bit about SC2. I just feel that maybe it was too well thought out, and as some others have said it probably would have been better as a blog.
Anyway, I think the major problem with this way of thinking is that you're comparing a game with 10+ years of balance with a game that has 2 years of balance. That is absolutely the biggest issue with these arguments. Give it another 2 years, and the 1 expansion that BW had before you write it off. If you're not willing to do that then I can't honestly believe that you want to enjoy SC2 at all. Hell, come back in 2 years and watch it then.
I honestly hope that you are able to enjoy the game that I love so dearly, and sincerely hope that you are able to see it in the same light some of us other fans do. I don't have any examples contradicting the views you currently have about the game and don't trust myself to put my feelings eloquently enough to not sound condescending and insulting, So I wouldn't be able to add any more to the thread, but I once again hope you find this game a joy at some point in the future.
Very thoughtful and sincere post. I really can sense your passion for Brood War.
Lack of Strategy: I'm sure you've thought of it, and it's probably been mentioned a thousand times, but SC2 isn't yet two years old, while Brood War is almost 14 years old. That's several eternities of difference, in PC gaming terms, for players to improve mechanically and strategically. Also, Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void (the expansions) aren't out yet.
So give SC2 some time. Maybe the expansions and evolving playerbase/metagame will provide the amount of strategy you want. In the meantime, Here's a link about the new HotS units; looks like Zerg is getting something akin to a flying Defiler. If only Lurkers were brought back...
On April 09 2012 06:59 KrsOne wrote: If you think the micro sc2 pros do is lack luster, try to do it yourself and then tell me how easy it is.
I never said anything about SC2 being easy, i just said i don't enjoy it as much as you guys do.
On April 09 2012 07:00 Noobity wrote: The post was well written, and I applaud your intent with it, but there are a couple issues that I have here.
First and foremost, telling us how we can convince you of something kind of defeats the purpose. If you have any desire to continue hating sc2 you're going to have specific arguments prepared to combat whatever arguments we ourselves put in place. It's like saying "Ok, lets play this game, but I only want you to play using this keyboard that has a very specific hotkey layout, and if you don't use that hotkey layout I'm not going to accept the defeat." It kind of puts people on the defensive before they've even read your arguments.
That being said, I do respect that you put forth the effort and I genuinely believe the post was made with the intent to get a positive reaction from the community, and to learn a bit about SC2. I just feel that maybe it was too well thought out, and as some others have said it probably would have been better as a blog.
Anyway, I think the major problem with this way of thinking is that you're comparing a game with 10+ years of balance with a game that has 2 years of balance. That is absolutely the biggest issue with these arguments. Give it another 2 years, and the 1 expansion that BW had before you write it off. If you're not willing to do that then I can't honestly believe that you want to enjoy SC2 at all. Hell, come back in 2 years and watch it then.
I honestly hope that you are able to enjoy the game that I love so dearly, and sincerely hope that you are able to see it in the same light some of us other fans do. I don't have any examples contradicting the views you currently have about the game and don't trust myself to put my feelings eloquently enough to not sound condescending and insulting, So I wouldn't be able to add any more to the thread, but I once again hope you find this game a joy at some point in the future.
I don't hate SC2, i just don't like it as much as BW.
I provided examples of arguments largely to keep the discussion on track. So far, it's worked reasonably well.
And like I've said in other replies, I'm aware SC2 has improved a lot since it started, and expect it to continue doing so. I'm not asking you guys to give me hope that I'll enjoy the game in a year, I'm asking for help enjoying the game today.
I don't think anyone can counter your points with examples - bw and sc2 are just different games, and the things you like more about bw are among the things that make the two games different.
For me, I don't watch bw as much because it's just not as popular among my friends and among the population in general. I play game for the social environment more than anything, and if I'm going to watch the next big tournament, I'd rather do it with at least a friend or two or even by going to a barcraft and viewing it with hundreds of people. If I want to watch bw, I'm alone, and... it's just not as fun.
Also, along those lines, I like the fact that I've been with the sc2 scene since early on - I've seen it grow, I'm familiar with all the top tier levels of play and the pro players who participate, and so the story surrounding each event and each matchup is intriguing for me. When I watch bw, the only thing I'm familiar with is Flash, Jaedong, Bisu, Stork, Fantasy, and a couple other guys that I can't even think of because I just haven't paid attention to it. I can go back and watch some old vods and try to catch up, but it's just not the same as having watched the entire scene come to life the way I have with sc2.
BW was an amazing game, and I agree with most ex-bw players/spectators that it was a better game overall. However, I still love sc2, and I hope that Blizzard is able to, with some time, increase the skill cap and lengthen the battles and make their game into an even better specator sport.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't enjoy watching sc2 - I won't try to make you change your mind. But hopefully, if you're able to get into the scene more, you'll be able to enjoy it in the future.
OP makes thread in sc2 forum containing "BW" in the title, reasonable discussion was over at that point. everyone just stop posting it's going nowhere
somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread somebody kill this thread
I don't really understand what the purpose of these posts is. To me they just seem like directionless complaining. This has been said a million times before and it seems like it will be said a million more times. I think the only reason they don't get closed immediately is because of bias by some of the forum moderators.
The simple fact of the matter is that every single thing mentioned on this list has constantly and consistently improved in Starcraft 2.
1) Army positioning is extremely important in Starcraft 2. Decision making is absolutely the standard that sets pro players apart from everyone else. Earlier on in the metagame people who could macro well or play fast were some of the best (remember oGsTOP?) but now everyone is good at base management and people who display strategic prowess have risen to the top (MarineKing, DRG, July, etc...).
2) In Starcraft 2 in basically every battle that is seen at the pro level, improved positioning can help both players gain a better advantage and have a more effective engagement. In early Starcraft 2 players didn't know how to position their armies so it was all about having the right unit composition in their "deathball." Now, however, players must spend considerably longer positioning and then re-positioning their armies. I would say battle length at least three to four times as long on average as it used to be and it will continue to increase. One thing that is also contributing to longer battles is more equal engagements. When both players trade at a similar cost-effectiveness it means their reinforcements can continue fighting an even battle when they arrive.
3) Micro is a very high level addition to play. Why do you see it in the early game more than the late game? Because the early game is quite figured out. Players aren't busy thinking about what strategic decision to make (because they've already made it) and are free to maximize army effectiveness. In the late game players are just barely figuring out how to position their army prior to the engagement, let alone how to micro during the engagement.
I find your post extremely pessimistic, but also willfully ignorant of the massive improvement in the level of pro SC2 play. People easily forget that the game is quite different from Brood War and that all of the strategies are being mapped out from scratch. It's only been two years and not even one expansion has come out yet. And as for your statement that pro SC2 never puts you on the edge of your seat: Really? Almost every major SC2 tournament is having a sick finals lately. Maybe it's because you're watching old games or something?
A lot of what you says is true, but just as much is not because of your lack of knowledge of sc2. Having played both sc1 and sc2(at a gm level), I've seen sc2 micro that is just as amazing as some of your examples of sc1 micro.
While strategies are somewhat lacking in sc2, the top games still have subtle strategical differences that only high level players can understand and appreciate. Even great commentators like Artosis miss half of these things when they occur, and I probably miss some as well; but they are definitely present.
and the Esports argument is valid, just because all you care about is your own entertainment doesn't mean everyone else is the same. Players have it extremely hard, and they show incredible skill which you cant even see b/c you are just a casual viewer. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to stop other people, the people who realize that sc2 is as difficult as any other "acknowledged" sport, the people who know how hard players have to train and how little they get for it, and the people want the players to actually be recognized and appreciated for what they do.
On April 09 2012 07:04 thrawn2112 wrote: OP makes thread in sc2 forum containing "BW" in the title, reasonable discussion was over at that point. everyone just stop posting it's going nowhere
It's more or less been reasonable for 12 pages, why don't you have some faith and try and participate.
On April 09 2012 07:04 thrawn2112 wrote: OP makes thread in sc2 forum containing "BW" in the title, reasonable discussion was over at that point. everyone just stop posting it's going nowhere
It's more or less been reasonable for 12 pages, why don't you have some faith and try and participate.
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.
I was more referring to the development of the overall metagame. This is what people mean when they talk about BW balance.
On April 09 2012 07:01 Gyro_SC2 wrote: If we compare bw to sc2, sc2 is very good !
Now broodwar, so boring to watch in my opinion
...This is the most funny thing anyone has ever posted. You are comparing pro sc2 players, not to pro bw players, not to amateur bw players, BUT FUCKING BOTS THAT WERE DEVELOPED FOR AN AI COMPETITION. lol
On April 09 2012 07:04 thrawn2112 wrote: OP makes thread in sc2 forum containing "BW" in the title, reasonable discussion was over at that point. everyone just stop posting it's going nowhere
It's more or less been reasonable for 12 pages, why don't you have some faith and try and participate.
i have and like everyone was ignored or dismissed
I'm sorry, i forgot you had provided some constructive replies. Just because i didn't explicitly quote your recommendation to watch Grubby doesn't mean i didn't notice it.
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.
I think Supah's post that you replied to highlights a lot of what I really enjoy about SC2 over BW. There's an incredible emphasis on absolutely perfect unit control in any sort of engagement, whether it's a pair of scout lings fighting over a watchtower, or a massive 200/200 fight where you have the "dances of death" going on. There are TINY windows of opportunities in these battles, and if you want to win you HAVE to take them. But if your control is off by the slightest margin, or your position is wrong that you create a tiny window that your opponent can exploit as well. You can have battles that look like they should be even, and then in the blink of an eye one side gets completely routed. And then, the REALLY great players, through having to control a huge variety and number of units in a smaller physical space PERFECTLY, will also be couterattacking with lings, drops, warp prisms etc. And even there, if someone tries to do that and they do mess up and loose their army, even if their counterattack did a ton of damage, there's just no way to hold off a giant army. This is a good and a bad thing of course, but in this context I love it. Do you want to try to win on multiple fronts? Well, you'd better do it PERFECTLY or the game is over, right then and there. Their economy can recover, and if your army didn't take out enough of theirs, you won't last another five minutes. It creates for very fast and furious large engagements, and with macro being easier, THAT'S where a player's physical abilities can really shine. I enjoy it for some of the same reasons I like watching dota 2: You get a game with lots of aggressive poking and posturing early on, and attempts to gain map control that can be very temporary, and not worth too much if not capitalized on quickly. Then, for the big fights, you have a million different things going on, and there are so many completely different abilities and units interacting with each other in a tiny space of time. They can go fairly even, one side can minimize its losses, but with the slightest bit of overcomittal things can change INSTANTLY. Very different games, but at times they can evoke the same types of feelings and reactions from me.
Another thing I like about SC2 is that is ISN'T as developed as BW. You have a lot of pressure to win, and do whatever you can to do so. But at the same time, if you're going to be sucessful in the long term, you need to be able to evolve as a player, have incredible depth to your play, and begin looking at the game in ways that no one else has yet. They address problems in a very different way. For example, in SC1, mech was very, well, mechanical. But in SC2, you have people, like MKP, experimenting with finding ways to mix the raw damage of bio with the resilience and utility of mech. This can take very different forms matchup to matchup, and even those that are doing it are still experimenting with how many hellions they might want to add, when they get which upgrades, expantion timings, how to properly replenish lost units, what can and cannot be afforded to be lost, etc. You can see certain players begin to just see the game in ways that no one else does. But, will they be the ones able to take it to the next level? Do they have the physical ability to execute what they see, and do they have the mental quickness and endurance to react to situations in game properly? Did they just stumble upon something, or do they really have an incredible mind? I just love watching that sort of development, and it creates wonderful storylines withnot just the evolution of the metagame, but the individual players that are driving that evolution.
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.
I think Supah's post that you replied to highlights a lot of what I really enjoy about SC2 over BW. There's an incredible emphasis on absolutely perfect unit control in any sort of engagement, whether it's a pair of scout lings fighting over a watchtower, or a massive 200/200 fight where you have the "dances of death" going on. There are TINY windows of opportunities in these battles, and if you want to win you HAVE to take them. But if your control is off by the slightest margin, or your position is wrong that you create a tiny window that your opponent can exploit as well. You can have battles that look like they should be even, and then in the blink of an eye one side gets completely routed. And then, the REALLY great players, through having to control a huge variety and number of units in a smaller physical space PERFECTLY, will also be couterattacking with lings, drops, warp prisms etc. And even there, if someone tries to do that and they do mess up and loose their army, even if their counterattack did a ton of damage, there's just no way to hold off a giant army. This is a good and a bad thing of course, but in this context I love it. Do you want to try to win on multiple fronts? Well, you'd better do it PERFECTLY or the game is over, right then and there. Their economy can recover, and if your army didn't take out enough of theirs, you won't last another five minutes. It creates for very fast and furious large engagements, and with macro being easier, THAT'S where a player's physical abilities can really shine. I enjoy it for some of the same reasons I like watching dota 2: You get a game with lots of aggressive poking and posturing early on, and attempts to gain map control that can be very temporary, and not worth too much if not capitalized on quickly. Then, for the big fights, you have a million different things going on, and there are so many completely different abilities and units interacting with each other in a tiny space of time. They can go fairly even, one side can minimize its losses, but with the slightest bit of overcomittal things can change INSTANTLY. Very different games, but at times they can evoke the same types of feelings and reactions from me.
Another thing I like about SC2 is that is ISN'T as developed as BW. You have a lot of pressure to win, and do whatever you can to do so. But at the same time, if you're going to be sucessful in the long term, you need to be able to evolve as a player, have incredible depth to your play, and begin looking at the game in ways that no one else has yet. They address problems in a very different way. For example, in SC1, mech was very, well, mechanical. But in SC2, you have people, like MKP, experimenting with finding ways to mix the raw damage of bio with the resilience and utility of mech. This can take very different forms matchup to matchup, and even those that are doing it are still experimenting with how many hellions they might want to add, when they get which upgrades, expantion timings, how to properly replenish lost units, what can and cannot be afforded to be lost, etc. You can see certain players begin to just see the game in ways that no one else does. But, will they be the ones able to take it to the next level? Do they have the physical ability to execute what they see, and do they have the mental quickness and endurance to react to situations in game properly? Did they just stumble upon something, or do they really have an incredible mind? I just love watching that sort of development, and it creates wonderful storylines withnot just the evolution of the metagame, but the individual players that are driving that evolution.
Thank you. I guess I've focused more on the process of the fights, and not the decisions on whether or not to commit to them.
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 06:01 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.
Actually, you didn't thank me. You thanked the other guy for comments about harrasment. Me you just dismissed by only saying you don't care about the history of starcraft and ignoring how that was about current sc2 actually being good now vs how starcraft one was at similar time in its life, and that if you see the potential for what you like you should watch sc2. I don't like to repeat myself, but no one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
Just because battles happen faster doesn't mean it takes less skill or is less exciting, it leaves less room for error, for example(I'm sure plenty of people can find a problem with the analagy) try driving down the road and taking a Sharp turn at 45 mph, if you slip up its ok there is time to correct, now try taking that same turn at 90 mph, one slip of the hand and its game over.
By the way, glad to see someone that's actually interested in seeing things through the eyes of a SC2 fan's perspective instead of just preaching about how awesome BW is (well it is awesome but you get my point ). You seem to really be trying to keep this as a reasonable discussion, which is a lot more than I can say about most threads about SC2 in the BW section, or BW posts in the SC2 section.
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:
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.
Actually, you didn't thank me. You thanked the other guy for comments about harrasment. Me you just dismissed by only saying you don't care about the history of starcraft and ignoring how that was about current sc2 actually being good now vs how starcraft one was at similar time in its life, and that if you see the potential for what you like you should watch sc2. I don't like to repeat myself, but no one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
Sorry, quotes within quotes within quotes and all that.
It's not that i don't care about the history of BW. You're right, things that i like about how BW is played today weren't present during the early years. Thing is, i don't watch BW games from back then, i watch games played today. I'm aware SC2 has improved, and hopeful that it will continue to do so. However, saying that SC2 has the potential to be great doesn't make me enjoy it today. That's like saying i should love the taste of vinegar because it could be used to make a kick ass salad dressing.
Finally, I'm asking you to help me appreciate your game more. To help me notice things i may have missed. That's entirely something others can do for me. Hell, it's basically a commentator's job.
On April 09 2012 07:16 KrsOne wrote: Just because battles happen faster doesn't mean it takes less skill or is less exciting, it leaves less room for error, for example(I'm sure plenty of people can find a problem with the analagy) try driving down the road and taking a Sharp turn at 45 mph, if you slip up its ok there is time to correct, now try taking that same turn at 90 mph, one slip of the hand and its game over.
I'm not talking about skill, I'm talking about the spectator experience. For me, the fact that battles are so fast in SC2 makes them less enjoyable, because it's harder to appreciate the details.
Very well written post. Just wanted to add I agree with you. You worded your arguments well, and gave solid examples.Also wanted to point out that the SC2 fans giving 1 line answers that don't add anything to the conversation is getting annoying. Come on, Original Poster spent a fair amount of time writing that up, the least you can do is spend a bit more time and write more than 1 sentence. Trust me, us BW fans WANT to like SC2. Just give us a reason to.
Is the OP honestly trying to compare BW in its prime days to Sc2, a game barely out of its first year in existence? Lets face it, everyone sucks at sc2. People just haven't played it long enough.
A lot of valid points. Because SC2 is so much faster paced and strategically oriented, it often feels like things in game are much differently (and extremely valued) than in other RTS games, BW included. There never seems to be a middle ground in things like engagements, economy management, skirmishes etc. Its either do or do not.
While this prevents players from recovering from large mistakes (which is fair, honestly) it prevents a lot of the potential from being reached. The force multipliers aren't as meaningful as they are in other games and while, yes, control IS valuable, there is no excess in which you can make it more valuable than it already is, or make it just slightly more useful.
On April 09 2012 07:21 INFDexter wrote: Is the OP honestly trying to compare BW in its prime days to Sc2, a game barely out of its first year in existence? Lets face it, everyone sucks at sc2. People just haven't played it long enough.
Fair enough. Why then do you like SC2, in spite of the fact that you feel it is played poorly?
On April 09 2012 07:22 AKomrade wrote: A lot of valid points. Because SC2 is so much faster paced and strategically oriented, it often feels like things in game are much differently (and extremely valued) than in other RTS games, BW included. There never seems to be a middle ground in things like engagements, economy management, skirmishes etc. Its either do or do not.
While this prevents players from recovering from large mistakes (which is fair, honestly) it prevents a lot of the potential from being reached. The force multipliers aren't as meaningful as they are in other games and while, yes, control IS valuable, there is no excess in which you can make it more valuable than it already is, or make it just slightly more useful.
Just to provide you some perspective, this is an argument that BW fans really dislike. In general, we feel that BW requires at least as much strategy as SC2 while also requiring better mechanics. Therefore, when we hear people say SC2 is "more strategic" it really irks us.
First, SCII is not BW, and likely never will be. As for strategy, the game is still developing, and strategy is only improving (compare this to the BW strategy a couple years in). Even now, there are many subtle things that someone who doesn't watch that much might not understand. An example I can think of was a recent game between I believe MKP, and a top protoss. MKP was pushing into the protoss's base, and after the initial storms, the chargelots started being kited across the map, but the protoss had hts positioned perfectly, and stormed 50% on 50% behind the kiting army, doing incredible damage, though I believe ultimately losing the game due to MKP's jaw-dropping bio splitting as the storms were beginning. I'm sorry that I can't remember the game, it might have been GSTL finals against parting (the regame). For your second point, yes battles are much shorter, and can sometimes be hard to tell what's happening, but that can lead to them being more exciting, because things happen suddenly. When 6 ghosts cloak and snipe/emp a bunch of hts/infestors in the blink of an eye, (I can't find the vod for this) when someone uses only zerglings and drops to crush a 2 collosus push that should've won the game, when that perfect vortex comes and instantly swallows the zerg's entire army, that is exciting. Also, brood lord pushes take a long time. And for micro, that will never be as good as bw, but you are missing some things that should be more frequent later, when players are better. First off, blink stalkers: while they are microd individually in small battles, in the big ones nearly all pros currently blink them back in packs because they aren't fast enough not to, this should change with time. Even top pros still headbutt their infestors into the opponents army from time to time. Muta micro is currently rather pathetic, I never see magic boxing around storms or archons, I don't see using a cliff to dance around marines or stalkers (which also results in long battles [I had an amazing example of this, but I lost my hard drive the other day ]), I don't see people microing ultralisks to account for their awful pathing, I hardly ever see people keeping a voidray charged by hitting their own units once, I never see roach burrow micro used like blink stalker micro, I rarely see people walking injured units to the back, I rarely see target firing in big battles, in pvp colossi often aren't split like they should be. For things that have happened, I remember a game where Hero microd his stalkers amazingly, and won without losing a single unit (I believe it was Hero TLO at MLG Raleigh, but their VOD service isn't working for me) Queen vs. hellion in base micro is very exciting to watch, and here Hero used warp prisms to make his immortals immortal, holding off an all in that looked for sure like it would kill him, and had an immortal with around 50 kills (Action starts around 7:00) To summarize, SCII will only get better with time.
Interesting things you pointed out, but why are those things like that.
Mostly sc2 is way faster then bw, which is a huge factor. There is less time to do the things you can do in bw. Mechanics being easier make up for this. But yes units clump easily, you fight the pathfinding as much as you did in bw, but since units are easier to control, you can micro more, so most units have some sort of micro involved.
But talking about a fight ending fast. A move a clump of units into a terran position ... in bw, that is fast. Also in bw, every trick is used to control your units. In sc2 you see a terran still a moving marines against heavy aoe compositions, while they can easily move in formation after you spread them. Banelings can do the same, still they move in a giant clump most of the time against siege tanks. Spellcasters cast their spells and others simply move into the opponent with full energy. In bw some can even storm with multiple templars at the same time, because they know how it works.
I don't know why people control everything in bw to its full potential, while in sc2 its simply a move a blob around and only start to micro when you are in battle. Maybe the game is to hard, I mean alot of people played bw and did all the stuff there. Maybe its an agreement to not micro. The phoenix is a good example though for why people don't micro. You can micro around don't lose a single phoenix kill workers left and right and suddenly you are overrun, because they took to much of your time and the oh so easy macro slipped.
But i think there is plenty of strategy involved in sc2 as well as in bw, you can often see gameplans. (+2 melee baneling bombs against a toss, now that was awesome). But the general strategy revolves around denying the third. Not much different from bw, don't let the zergy get the gas income.
What i like the most in sc2 over bw. Is that you don't have those strong off guard moments. In BW a single unit can mess you up badly while you where busy somewhere else. While this looks like an awesome move for a viewer, I always disliked that it was only possible because the opponent didn't payed attention. That's not so easy to achieve in sc2, simple because players aren't in their base 60% of the time reproducing units.
My biggest dislike in sc2 is the increased supply cost. As mentioned workers cut the available supply to a point where getting more then 3 bases just isn't worth it, because your army would be to small and get overrun. I like the oversupply mechanic of every race (orbitals/warpgates/building cancel trick). And when i start the flood as zerg I often do it with 230 supply. But even then, Hydras 2 supplys ... tanks 3 supply that do half of the damage of a 2 supply bw tank. To do the work of a bw tank (2 supply) you need 2 sc2 tanks (6 supply) and there is this units are way faster in sc2 bonus reducing the tank effectiveness even. They wanted to make sc2 play out faster then bw. But i think it was a bad decision to reduce the amount of units on the map. My hope is that they will reduce the optimal worker amount per base in the future expansions. Other then that the game is really good gives the players alot of opportunities to make the units work better. And luckily don't make them that insane like in bw. It was nice to watch nice to pull off, but it felt like you won because your opponent wasn't there.
Just my personal experience between sc2 and bw. I play to many rts games, to really become a master in any of them. But the potential they put in sc2 is only scratched a bit and can mostly be seen in the marine.
PS: still baffled that people don't see giant groups burrowed unit movement, but see every observer coming to close to their army. Okay some maps have fog, which hides burrowed units perfectly.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
Thank you. I guess I've focused more on the process of the fights, and not the decisions on whether or not to commit to them.
It's not just the decision to commit. It can be EXTREMELY difficult to determine exactly how much you are committing to a certain fight, and even when you DO decide to go in, unit control has a LOT to do with exactly how much you've committed. How quickly can you decide to put forcefields in what place? How many stalkers to you have blink where? Do you storm or feedback first? When microing your marines and marauders, when, where, and how do you have them split up? Can you get your hellions in a position to take advantage of this? Can you get that colossus and lift safely? Will those vikings do enough damage to the broodlords that you don't get overwhelmed during the fight by broodlings, even if your vikings do die to fungals and corruptors? Can you make them last just a bit longer by microing them a bit, and is it worth it more than controling your marines at that exact same moment? Can you spare that split second of your time to drop when their infestors are right out of range of the marines in your main army to take out that spire? Can you afford to bait those stims/forcefields with your muta/ling army and take out their critical units without loosing too much? Once you have sent your utltras in, can you make your fungals and banelings connect to trade cost efficiently? Stuff like that.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
By the time SC2 is 12 years old as an esport (the minimum age of SCBW in the vods linked), it will not be missing any of the things you mention. I would see these things (high strategy, better micro) rising out of necessity as the game gets older.
They exist, but you can't open a vod and expect to see them. Not least because there are few casters who know enough to point out strategic brilliance even when it is staring them in the face. High level zergs have been fairly consistent with having a strong overarching strategy to their play for some time now.
If you discount DRG's dismal performance in code S this season atleast.
PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find.
edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines.
You should just stop watching SC2. It's clear you don't enjoy it as much as BW. Lucky for you, you have 10 years of VODS to go through. Get crackin' big guy!
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map.
On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find.
edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines.
I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does.
On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote: PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon.
Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
On April 09 2012 07:21 INFDexter wrote: Is the OP honestly trying to compare BW in its prime days to Sc2, a game barely out of its first year in existence? Lets face it, everyone sucks at sc2. People just haven't played it long enough.
Fair enough. Why then do you like SC2, in spite of the fact that you feel it is played poorly?
On April 09 2012 07:22 AKomrade wrote: A lot of valid points. Because SC2 is so much faster paced and strategically oriented, it often feels like things in game are much differently (and extremely valued) than in other RTS games, BW included. There never seems to be a middle ground in things like engagements, economy management, skirmishes etc. Its either do or do not.
While this prevents players from recovering from large mistakes (which is fair, honestly) it prevents a lot of the potential from being reached. The force multipliers aren't as meaningful as they are in other games and while, yes, control IS valuable, there is no excess in which you can make it more valuable than it already is, or make it just slightly more useful.
Just to provide you some perspective, this is an argument that BW fans really dislike. In general, we feel that BW requires at least as much strategy as SC2 while also requiring better mechanics. Therefore, when we hear people say SC2 is "more strategic" it really irks us.
Here's my thoughts on the mechanics thing - It is without question that BW requires more mechanics. But can physical multitasking be rewarded as much in SC2 as in BW? I think so. To clarify, I feel that while BW requires more mechanics, the actual ceiling for potential benefit of having that mechanical ability is pretty much equal. And I am 100% with you on the strategic thing too. BW games are not two robots bashing their heads against each other until one wins. You have extremely clever strategies, tactics, and mind games involved in BW. Just read up on the famous Bisu/Savior series (VOD with english commentary:+ Show Spoiler +
) where Bisu broke out a crazy DT/Corsair strategy and pretty much revolutionized PvZ. Sure, you can brute force a weaker opponent with mechanics and win in BW, just like you can in SC2. But with players at the highest level, BW absolutely deserves its title as a real time strategy game.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
Yeah, unfortunately, armies splitting off and engaging each other at separate areas of the map just isn't part of sc2 yet. Whenever I try something like that on the ladder, I get smashed, and then good players tell me it's a nooby thing to do. For whatever reason, it's generally not considered to be a good tactic at all, hence the reason why armies are always clumped up in one big ball. Separation of the ball of death = death 9 times out of 10. (Maybe less than that, but you get the idea :p )
Listen if you can't get into watching Sc2 that's fine but stop coming to our forums and making posts like this. You wouldn't consider it acceptable if we went into the LoL/BW forums and took a steaming shit on them and went on about how our game is better, why do you think it's okay here.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map.
On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find.
edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines.
I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does.
On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote: PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon.
Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all.
Good stuff man, really entertaining to read. I agree with pretty much everything you said here, I hope heart of the swarm brings many new great things to sc2 to make it more entertaining to watch.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map.
On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find.
edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines.
I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does.
On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote: PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon.
Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all.
No. You said "hey, that thing you like in BW is happening right now in SC2" and i replied "actually, that's not really the same thing." That's all.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map.
On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find.
edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines.
I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does.
On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote: PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon.
Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all.
No. You said "hey, that thing you like in BW is happening right now in SC@" and i replied "actually, that's not really the same thing." That's all.
yeah, im going to stick with my original response. if you didnt think that game was entertaining enough for you to continue watching SC2, dont bother to continue watching SC2. its really that simple. 90% of games will not be more entertaining than that game. glad there was such a simple solution to your "dilemma."
BW had better map control units with lurkers, reavers, and spider mines, so battles were more spread out by necessity.
That's why the Swarm Host is what excites me most in HotS, XvZ will become more about map control. TvT and TvZ are already map-control based due to tanks, that MMA vs Stephano game had fewer tanks so it was more blob vs blob than usual in TvZ.
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:
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.
Actually, you didn't thank me. You thanked the other guy for comments about harrasment. Me you just dismissed by only saying you don't care about the history of starcraft and ignoring how that was about current sc2 actually being good now vs how starcraft one was at similar time in its life, and that if you see the potential for what you like you should watch sc2. I don't like to repeat myself, but no one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
Sorry, quotes within quotes within quotes and all that.
It's not that i don't care about the history of BW. You're right, things that i like about how BW is played today weren't present during the early years. Thing is, i don't watch BW games from back then, i watch games played today. I'm aware SC2 has improved, and hopeful that it will continue to do so. However, saying that SC2 has the potential to be great doesn't make me enjoy it today. That's like saying i should love the taste of vinegar because it could be used to make a kick ass salad dressing.
Finally, I'm asking you to help me appreciate your game more. To help me notice things i may have missed. That's entirely something others can do for me. Hell, it's basically a commentator's job.
On April 09 2012 07:16 KrsOne wrote: Just because battles happen faster doesn't mean it takes less skill or is less exciting, it leaves less room for error, for example(I'm sure plenty of people can find a problem with the analagy) try driving down the road and taking a Sharp turn at 45 mph, if you slip up its ok there is time to correct, now try taking that same turn at 90 mph, one slip of the hand and its game over.
I'm not talking about skill, I'm talking about the spectator experience. For me, the fact that battles are so fast in SC2 makes them less enjoyable, because it's harder to appreciate the details.
Saying you wouldn't watch it even if you see the potential for what you want in it is just being pretentious. That vinegar analogy doesn't work, people put vinegar on salad dressing because it tastes good. If what you say is lacking is not, most of your arguments are completely moot.
And as for your other argument, while you may think faster battles are less enjoyable, the community unfortunately thinks otherwise. There is a reason we play on the "Fastest" setting, even if it makes blizzard time annoying to deal with.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map.
On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find.
edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines.
I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does.
On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote: PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon.
Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all.
No. You said "hey, that thing you like in BW is happening right now in SC@" and i replied "actually, that's not really the same thing." That's all.
yeah, im going to stick with my original response. if you didnt think that game was entertaining enough for you to continue watching SC2, dont bother to continue watching SC2. its really that simple. 90% of games will not be more entertaining than that game. glad there was such a simple solution to your "dilemma."
You're changing the subject. The issue isn't whether or not that game was entertaining as a whole (it was), but whether or not a specific thing that occurs in BW was happening (it wasn't).
Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
Ok, I feel the same way. I enjoyed BW without playing it, but I didn't enjoy watching SC2 before actually picking up the game.
I think a good example of great micro and of an exciting game was yesterdays game in GSTL between MKP and Parting. It didn't have multiple battles going on at the same time but it demonstrated great unit control and showed that even tho units get clumped that if a player has great control they can make the outcome go in their favor after a large engagement. If only the game wasn't plagued by that drop then it would have been perfect.
On April 09 2012 07:24 dAPhREAk wrote: MMA vs Stephano. multiple locations being attacked. you watching?
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
Again, sneaking a small force around to attack an undefended base while your main army holds off their main army isn't the same thing as two or three mid sized armies fighting each other at the same time at different points on the map.
On April 09 2012 07:32 DarkInfinity wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
On April 09 2012 07:28 deafhobbit wrote: [quote]
I am. To be clear though, drops multiple places aren't quite what BW fans mean when they talk about fights going on all over the place. Because balls really don't exist in BW, armies tend to be scattered all over the place, and instead of having one big fight and a few drops you tend to have several mid sized ones going on at once.
This isn't to say that MMA v Stephano isn't impressive, only that it's different.
he was defending an attack, and he had a marrine/medivac/tank army taking out expansions. what exactly do you want?
edit: he just did it again. he is defending and attacking at the same time.
He doesn't want two separate battles going on in different places, but one big battle spread out evenly over a huge area, not one big ball hitting another big ball, while 8 marines are shooting a spine crawler.
That too, though i have to qualify your statement. Multiple battles happening at once is fun, but i don't really see harassing an essentially undefended base as a battle.
if you didnt enjoy that game, you should just not bother to watch SC2. that is probably as entertaining a game as you will find.
edit: stephano did have a force to fight off the tank/medivac/marines.
I never said i didn't enjoy it, only that it didn't have spread out fights the way that BW does.
On April 09 2012 07:35 Cassel_Castle wrote: PLAY Sc2 instead of just watching it, it's a lot easier to appreciate the strategy of a game you play frequently. If you don't like it you don't have to play or watch it, there's plenty of other games out there.
People are still playing Warcraft II by the way. You don't have to worry about BW disappearing entirely any time soon.
Like I've said before, this isn't an option. I know my tastes as a gamer, and i know that i don't enjoy playing RTS's. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching BW, so playing SC2 shouldn't be necessary to appreciate it.
so, what you want is that sc2 be played like bw? because thats not going to happen. its a different game with different mechanics, units, etc. you either watch it and enjoy it for what it is, or dont watch at all.
No. You said "hey, that thing you like in BW is happening right now in SC@" and i replied "actually, that's not really the same thing." That's all.
yeah, im going to stick with my original response. if you didnt think that game was entertaining enough for you to continue watching SC2, dont bother to continue watching SC2. its really that simple. 90% of games will not be more entertaining than that game. glad there was such a simple solution to your "dilemma."
You're changing the subject. The issue isn't whether or not that game was entertaining as a whole (it was), but whether or not a specific thing that occurs in BW was happening (it wasn't).
i never said it was the same as BW. read the quotes. and im addressing the point of this whole thread: convincing you whether to watch sc2. although i am beginning to agree with most people that argue you want less to enjoy sc2 than to convince people that bw is better.
On April 09 2012 07:43 Cassel_Castle wrote: BW had better map control units with lurkers, reavers, and spider mines, so battles were more spread out by necessity.
That's why the Swarm Host is what excites me most in HotS, XvZ will become more about map control. TvT and TvZ are already map-control based due to tanks, that MMA vs Stephano game had fewer tanks so it was more blob vs blob than usual in TvZ.
Definitely. SC2 did a great job of creating furious, faster paced battles. But they really cut back on space control. I'd love to see a marriage of the two.
EDIT: I'd also recommend avoiding picking games purely based on who's playing for examples of what SC2 is. It's impossible to say before a game starts if it's going to be great or not. Sure, it might be jaedong vs flash. But who's to say Jaedong won't just 4 pool or something, or Flash won't all in with proxied rax? It could be a lame, 6 minute or less game. You can call a game a great example of something ONLY if you've seen the whole thing through, start to finish. Stephano VS MMA was an example of one thing that could happen, not the absolute pinnacle in entertainment of TvZ, or even Stephano VS MMA, in SC2.
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.
[quote]
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:
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.
Actually, you didn't thank me. You thanked the other guy for comments about harrasment. Me you just dismissed by only saying you don't care about the history of starcraft and ignoring how that was about current sc2 actually being good now vs how starcraft one was at similar time in its life, and that if you see the potential for what you like you should watch sc2. I don't like to repeat myself, but no one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
Sorry, quotes within quotes within quotes and all that.
It's not that i don't care about the history of BW. You're right, things that i like about how BW is played today weren't present during the early years. Thing is, i don't watch BW games from back then, i watch games played today. I'm aware SC2 has improved, and hopeful that it will continue to do so. However, saying that SC2 has the potential to be great doesn't make me enjoy it today. That's like saying i should love the taste of vinegar because it could be used to make a kick ass salad dressing.
Finally, I'm asking you to help me appreciate your game more. To help me notice things i may have missed. That's entirely something others can do for me. Hell, it's basically a commentator's job.
On April 09 2012 07:16 KrsOne wrote: Just because battles happen faster doesn't mean it takes less skill or is less exciting, it leaves less room for error, for example(I'm sure plenty of people can find a problem with the analagy) try driving down the road and taking a Sharp turn at 45 mph, if you slip up its ok there is time to correct, now try taking that same turn at 90 mph, one slip of the hand and its game over.
I'm not talking about skill, I'm talking about the spectator experience. For me, the fact that battles are so fast in SC2 makes them less enjoyable, because it's harder to appreciate the details.
Saying you wouldn't watch it even if you see the potential for what you want in it is just being pretentious. That vinegar analogy doesn't work, people put vinegar on salad dressing because it tastes good. If what you say is lacking is not, most of your arguments are completely moot.
And as for your other argument, while you may think faster battles are less enjoyable, the community unfortunately thinks otherwise. There is a reason we play on the "Fastest" setting, even if it makes blizzard time annoying to deal with.
Why is it being pretentious? I have limited time to devote to entertainment, and want to use it well.
On April 09 2012 07:46 mynameisgreat11 wrote: OP, why don't you specifically tell us what you want out of this thread.
-Do you want us to argue your points and point out how SC2 has strategy and micro?
-Do you want VOD examples of good SC2 games?
Both of those have been provided, so it must be something else. Enlighten us.
Those are what i want, which i said quite clearly in the OP. I want hear more voices and have more VODs, thus my continued posting.
It is very likely that the problem that is keeping you from enjoying SC2 at this point is in your head (a mental block of some sort). Some vods of good games probably won't fix your problem. In the end the game itself is not what makes watching competitions enjoyable (it is a prerequisite to some extent) - in the end, it's more about two or more teams, people or aliens trying to get the better of each other or some other goal. The emotional response you get from watching a match depends a lot on how well you connect to the competitors.
Monty Python has a rather interesting sketch about competitions in my opinion:
On April 09 2012 07:50 Hundisilm wrote: It is very likely that the problem that is keeping you from enjoying SC2 at this point is in your head (a mental block of some sort). Some vods of good games probably won't fix your problem. In the end the game itself is not what makes watching competitions enjoyable (it is a prerequisite to some extent) - in the end, it's more about two or more teams, people or aliens trying to get the better of each other or some other goal. The emotional response you get from watching a match depends a lot on how well you connect to the competitors.
Monty Python has a rather interesting sketch about competitions in my opinion:
That could certainly be true, however that doesn't change the fact that I'd like to be able to enjoy SC2 more. It might be that SC2 just won't click for me, in which case i won't watch it. I'm not quite ready to accept that conclusion, however.
On April 09 2012 07:54 mynameisgreat11 wrote: OP, why don't you specifically tell us what you want out of this thread.
-Do you want us to argue your points and point out how SC2 has strategy and micro?
-Do you want VOD examples of good SC2 games?
Both of those have been provided, so it must be something else. Enlighten us.
I replied to this above.
On April 09 2012 07:55 thrawn2112 wrote: one reason i think sc2 games can be boring is that the casters on average are pretty bad
I will admit, Korean casting is much more exciting. If i had followed SC2 enough that i felt confident in my knowledge about it, I'd probably watch the Korean streams.
I think you put a lot of effort and time into what is essentially a useless thread, and I'm not really sure why you made it. (yes I have read it all).
This thread is supposed to make you 'like SC2 more'? How on earth is this supposed to make you like it more? You have just stated problems (valid ones, sure) that are impossible to change mostly and have been discussed a lot before this.
On April 09 2012 07:57 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I think you put a lot of effort and time into what is essentially a useless thread, and I'm not really sure why you made it. (yes I have read it all).
This thread is supposed to make you 'like SC2 more'? How on earth is this supposed to make you like it more? You have just stated problems (valid ones, sure) that are impossible to change mostly and have been discussed a lot before this.
Like i said, you could do this by explaining why my points are wrong, or by pointing out other things about SC2 that i may have missed that are good. Several posters have done this, so the thread clearly isn't useless.
On April 09 2012 07:57 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I think you put a lot of effort and time into what is essentially a useless thread, and I'm not really sure why you made it. (yes I have read it all).
This thread is supposed to make you 'like SC2 more'? How on earth is this supposed to make you like it more? You have just stated problems (valid ones, sure) that are impossible to change mostly and have been discussed a lot before this.
Like i said, you could do this by explaining why my points are wrong, or by pointing out other things about SC2 that i may have missed that are good. Several posters have done this, so the thread clearly isn't useless.
...why don't you just watch some games and judge for yourself? You don't need other people to tell you why you like a game. All this thread serves as is a BW vs SC2 argument.
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."
Woa. Nice job summing up exactly what I read from the OP
On April 09 2012 07:57 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I think you put a lot of effort and time into what is essentially a useless thread, and I'm not really sure why you made it. (yes I have read it all).
This thread is supposed to make you 'like SC2 more'? How on earth is this supposed to make you like it more? You have just stated problems (valid ones, sure) that are impossible to change mostly and have been discussed a lot before this.
Like i said, you could do this by explaining why my points are wrong, or by pointing out other things about SC2 that i may have missed that are good. Several posters have done this, so the thread clearly isn't useless.
...why don't you just watch some games and judge for yourself? You don't need other people to tell you why you like a game. All this thread serves as is a BW vs SC2 argument.
...Like i said, I've watched lots of SC2, and it hasn't made me love it half as much as i love BW. I made this thread to talk with the SC2 community and learn what you love about your game. With the BW scene likely on the outs, and my favorite players and teams transitioning to SC2, I want to give the game another chance, and figured this was the best way to do so.
Turns out, I've gotten a lot of good comments toward that goal. So again, I'd contend this thread wasn't a waste of time.
As a fan brought up on BW and the fact I love watching SC2, I can answer this a tad easier then just providing examples.
Don't let your conceived notions of BW affect what you want out of SC2.
It is that simple. I treat SC2 as a brand new game not even remotely close to BW. They have new tactics, new builds, new strategies, and new rivals. Some names might be the same or units have the same name... but this game was designed for mass use on the first expansion. DO NOT FORGET THAT POINT. The next two expansions will be designed to clean up the Story of the Campaign and will likely lean more to the Pro Scene.
On April 09 2012 07:50 Hundisilm wrote: It is very likely that the problem that is keeping you from enjoying SC2 at this point is in your head (a mental block of some sort). Some vods of good games probably won't fix your problem. In the end the game itself is not what makes watching competitions enjoyable (it is a prerequisite to some extent) - in the end, it's more about two or more teams, people or aliens trying to get the better of each other or some other goal. The emotional response you get from watching a match depends a lot on how well you connect to the competitors.
Monty Python has a rather interesting sketch about competitions in my opinion:
That could certainly be true, however that doesn't change the fact that I'd like to be able to enjoy SC2 more. It might be that SC2 just won't click for me, in which case i won't watch it. I'm not quite ready to accept that conclusion, however.
[/url]
Good luck with that, hope you'll get over it. I actually have the same problem with BroodWar (really can't get into it). It's kind of the reason why I believe the game mechanics are really not the reason behind your problem (I was more trying to say that you should probably look in another direction for the solution, not that you shouldn't look for one if you want to).
On April 09 2012 07:57 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I think you put a lot of effort and time into what is essentially a useless thread, and I'm not really sure why you made it. (yes I have read it all).
This thread is supposed to make you 'like SC2 more'? How on earth is this supposed to make you like it more? You have just stated problems (valid ones, sure) that are impossible to change mostly and have been discussed a lot before this.
Like i said, you could do this by explaining why my points are wrong, or by pointing out other things about SC2 that i may have missed that are good. Several posters have done this, so the thread clearly isn't useless.
...why don't you just watch some games and judge for yourself? You don't need other people to tell you why you like a game. All this thread serves as is a BW vs SC2 argument.
...Like i said, I've watched lots of SC2, and it hasn't made me love it half as much as i love BW. I made this thread to talk with the SC2 community and learn what you love about your game. With the BW scene likely on the outs, and my favorite players and teams transitioning to SC2, I want to give the game another chance, and figured this was the best way to do so.
Turns out, I've gotten a lot of good comments toward that goal. So again, I'd contend this thread wasn't a waste of time.
How? How will people saying what they like about SC2 change your view at all? You've watched SC2 and don't like it, and you have your own personal reasons for it as stated in your OP. If I don't like watching football, and I have watched it before and have my personal reasons for disliking it, but someone says "oh I like it because it's really fast-paced" that's not going to change my opinion of football because I know it is fast-paced as I have watched it BUT DON'T FREAKING LIKE IT. I'm too tired to explain properly and I know that was a roundabout way of saying it but this thread man...
On April 09 2012 07:57 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I think you put a lot of effort and time into what is essentially a useless thread, and I'm not really sure why you made it. (yes I have read it all).
This thread is supposed to make you 'like SC2 more'? How on earth is this supposed to make you like it more? You have just stated problems (valid ones, sure) that are impossible to change mostly and have been discussed a lot before this.
Like i said, you could do this by explaining why my points are wrong, or by pointing out other things about SC2 that i may have missed that are good. Several posters have done this, so the thread clearly isn't useless.
...why don't you just watch some games and judge for yourself? You don't need other people to tell you why you like a game. All this thread serves as is a BW vs SC2 argument.
...Like i said, I've watched lots of SC2, and it hasn't made me love it half as much as i love BW. I made this thread to talk with the SC2 community and learn what you love about your game. With the BW scene likely on the outs, and my favorite players and teams transitioning to SC2, I want to give the game another chance, and figured this was the best way to do so.
Turns out, I've gotten a lot of good comments toward that goal. So again, I'd contend this thread wasn't a waste of time.
How? How will people saying what they like about SC2 change your view at all? You've watched SC2 and don't like it, and you have your own personal reasons for it as stated in your OP. If I don't like watching football, and I have watched it before and have my personal reasons for disliking it, but someone says "oh I like it because it's really fast-paced" that's not going to change my opinion of football because I know it is fast-paced as I have watched it BUT DON'T FREAKING LIKE IT. I'm too tired to explain properly and I know that was a roundabout way of saying it but this thread man...
We're running in circles here.
People can help me appreciate SC2 more by explaining how the problem i have with it are incorrect, how they aren't really that bad, or by pointing out other things about the game they appreciate. I think this is the third time I've told you this.
I think your problem is that you're assuming malice. I don't dislike SC2, i just don't like it that much, and with my favorite teams players moving on to it i'd like to enjoy it more. What about this are you having trouble grasping?
Also, I didn't initially like watching SCII, but while I was looking at the (day[9]) dailies to try to get better, I saw this game, and realized how amazing watching SCII could be http://blip.tv/day9tv/day-9-daily-233-thelittleone-vs-white-ra-4611859 Here, you have an amazing game with epic strategy (although it is like 17 patches ago), explained by day [9].
You spent so much time talking up BW and looking at all the finer points of BW, that you cannot appreciate the same things that happen in SC2.
I'll give you an example: Lurkers vs Marines and Medics - This is exactly the same as Marine splitting against Banelings. Both increase the cost effectiveness of your marine. In both games, you can use tanks to target fire the lurkers/banelings and further increase the cost effectiveness of your army. Then you get stim for marines, or baneling speed, as well as the positional aspects of fighting on/off creep, and you have depth much like high ground lurkers or other things.
In both games, the zerg has multiple ways to deal with this at varying stages of the game. Mutalisk harass in the main base. Mutalisks sniping as much as possible. Queens for broodling or Infestors for fungal. Late game, you have defilers in BW, or Brood Lords in SC2. You'll have scourge to deal with science vessels in SC1, or you'll have raven/viking fighting your corruptor ball, with thor/infestor support.
Now, I'm not even going to say that my knowledge of BW is anything close to complete, but you can sort of see where an SC2 fan is coming from - and how much you don't understand as someone that doesn't watch SC2 at all.
My point is that from a completely objective perspective, you can enjoy similar levels of strategy in both games. The point is that you look at what I typed, and you think "wow, marine/lurker interaction is SO much more in depth than marine/baneling interaction!"
Because of that, I don't think any amount of VODs can help you.
In terms of lack of strategy, that can come down to the game not being as old and therefore not as figured out, I guess you can kind of relate it to how Stephano tries to play his ZvT, he will constantly prod and poke with his zerglings until he has either infestors or an overwhelming number of zerglings and better upgrades.
One thing I can say in regards to the clumped up set of units against a clumped up set of units (and the lack of micro) would be that: In Brood War you would watch out for how good a storm is (how many units each storm hits) Whereas in SC2 you watch out for how good a player is at avoiding said storm (spreading their units out accordingly and dodging in and out of storms to keep their units alive, a good example of this would be MarineKingPRIME vs STPartinG in the GSTL final this weekend. Also during this you have Parting microing with his main army whilst he uses his high templar to flank MKP's army to get a storm off on them.
Although I will admit I do have no idea on an answer for the longer battles that bw gives
This thread has been done countless times since the beta. Again, nothing new or helpful will come of it, yes we know you like BW more, and yes you've linked many awesome BW VODs, fantastic. I like BW too. I like SC 2. These threads are meaningless and only generally serve to divide the community.
You say that you want to hear more voices and see more VODs. What will this accomplish? You have made your point, as have the hundreds of people before you who have pointed out the same things with the same VODs long before you posted this.
These are two seperate games, SC 2 is a sequel, and Blizz took the game in a new direction in some cases, get over it. Love or hate either game, but beating this dead horse of SC 2 vs. BW gets us nowhere. Respect both games, live long and prosper.
fantastic post. i've only vaguely thought about your post in the past and you've summed up any arguments i could have made much better than i could have. very well thought out.
honestly, any great game of starcraft 2 does all of the things you've been saying the game doesn't do if differently. one thing i will say is that there are some games where everyone stays extremely passive for most of the game and only engages in big fights. thats what generates most of what you're seeing. and when that happens, the games are mediocre and boring. the average game of brood war is much more exciting than the average game of sc2 at this point in the game.
lets face it though, the game is still very under-developed in terms of what we know and what the players do and are able to do. we haven't even come close to the life-span of BW, so we honestly don't know where this game will take us especially with the new units being tossed in during heart of the swarm and legacy of the void.
and don't even get me started on the maps in starcraft 2 and how they contribute to every point you make.......
i think its too early to tell whether or not youre correct
On April 09 2012 08:31 Cracked wrote: OP you're absolutely full of crap.
You spent so much time talking up BW and looking at all the finer points of BW, that you cannot appreciate the same things that happen in SC2.
I'll give you an example: Lurkers vs Marines and Medics - This is exactly the same as Marine splitting against Banelings. Both increase the cost effectiveness of your marine. In both games, you can use tanks to target fire the lurkers/banelings and further increase the cost effectiveness of your army. Then you get stim for marines, or baneling speed, as well as the positional aspects of fighting on/off creep, and you have depth much like high ground lurkers or other things.
In both games, the zerg has multiple ways to deal with this at varying stages of the game. Mutalisk harass in the main base. Mutalisks sniping as much as possible. Queens for broodling or Infestors for fungal. Late game, you have defilers in BW, or Brood Lords in SC2. You'll have scourge to deal with science vessels in SC1, or you'll have raven/viking fighting your corruptor ball, with thor/infestor support.
Now, I'm not even going to say that my knowledge of BW is anything close to complete, but you can sort of see where an SC2 fan is coming from - and how much you don't understand as someone that doesn't watch SC2 at all.
My point is that from a completely objective perspective, you can enjoy similar levels of strategy in both games. The point is that you look at what I typed, and you think "wow, marine/lurker interaction is SO much more in depth than marine/baneling interaction!"
Because of that, I don't think any amount of VODs can help you.
I do watch SC2, but you're right, i don't understand it as much as i do BW. That's why i made this thread, because i hope that if you guys help me understand and appreciate SC2 i will enjoy it more.
Well the reseaon for most people switching to Sc2 was probaly the hype around it and the fact that it's new, which makes it more exciting. I agree to your points, but i think as the time goes on, sc2 developes into a good direction. The more things get figured out and the better players become, the more awesome actions we will see, but not only that i think the game will get deeper in many terms. Lets just pick maps for example : First there were just some maps by blizzard, that were imba and bad etc. Then there were either kind of boring maps that are balanced and macro orientated etc, but as said were kinda simple and boring or there were maps that tried to implement some new features, but didn't work out or were heavily imbalanced (this is actually kind of the situation atm), but eventually people will learn how maps should be done and will be able to combine both : new features and strategical possibilities and a good balance, which will make the game more exciting. This was just an example of the fact that the game is developing in a good way, which is a process that BW went through as well, making it to the awesome game it is right now ( or has been the past years). The problem that a lot of people have with sc2 fights is, that they're often only include late game 200/200 balls, but i can already see a development into smaller fights for map controle etc, because as people got better they realized that several actions they thought were undoable, because they were afraid of getting killed, do actually work. I fell that sc2 has a lot of potential.
EPT
Flash v 
Best, SPL
Action v 
. 
]), I don't see people microing ultralisks to account for their awful pathing, I hardly ever see people keeping a voidray charged by hitting their own units once, I never see roach burrow micro used like blink stalker micro, I rarely see people walking injured units to the back, I rarely see target firing in big battles, in pvp colossi often aren't split like they should be.
