EPTWhat wrecked SC2? - Page 25
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
On August 02 2017 00:24 ProMeTheus112 wrote: you don't agree? but I wrote many paragraphs about it before, I'm not doing it again every time Can you link those? Disruptors were prevalent very early in the game after it released and now are rarely seen in greater numbers outside of PvP. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Maybe i missed your big, well thought out post though. It's possible i guess. But saying things like "I mean DISRUPTORS man lol (being a bandaid to deathballs!), its rather extreme!" i actually doubt it. | ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
On August 02 2017 00:29 ProMeTheus112 wrote: there is my post list in my profile^^ Didn't think it would search your posts for a phrase. 2015 "disruptors are completely unstable, its not even rly micro" "you can't know when enemy disruptors have started firing cause you can't always see them, that + the speed makes the shots results very random and can decide the game at any time, it is almost the worst kind of thing you can put into a RTS" "disruptor is RLY ridiculous^^" "There is too much run away/run forward trying to get a crippling shot or dodge, can't seem to rely on any positionning or planning for more than a few seconds, small lucky events are too dominant. It feels a bit too much like a game of speed-poker. Things like Disruptors are really stupid" "Well Parting said himself interviewed after his win vs Huk (was it 3-1) that the disruptor shots involve luck so as well as being really tedious to control they give potential to the better player to lose to a bad exchange" "Disruptors I've already written many times why I think it's broken I think even in this topic" (what you wrote is above) 2016 "disruptors (horrible random volatility)" "SC2's problem is the pathing, the colossus, the clumping, the disruptors, the rather binary relationships between units, the chargelots no micro, etc" "At WoL time what made me leave is many things, I also disliked playing against bioballs, marauders, broodlords, and nowadays I would not like using adepts or oracles or mothership core or disruptors (://) or playing against liberators" That's all I found. I don't believe most of those luck factors and volatility you mentioned are any different nowadays than taking advantage of someone not covering his mineral line at some point. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
I wrote a lot of things describing what I thought about SC2, here is just an example http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/497696-sc2-could-be-so-much-more-design-and-balance#8 also it is interesting what you said about mineral line aquaSC, because the insta damage that some of the mineral line attacks can do in BW is exactly one of my least favorite parts of the game  and everybody knows it is much worse in sc2 (in my dream game workers would be significantly more resilient or the quickest worker-attacking moves less quickly devastating) | ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
On August 02 2017 00:39 ProMeTheus112 wrote: But you just state this as fact, you're not explaining why you don't think that's extreme volatility! (to me it is kinda obvious) I wrote a lot of things describing what I thought about SC2, here is just an example http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/497696-sc2-could-be-so-much-more-design-and-balance#8 also it is interesting what you said about mineral line aquaSC, because the insta damage that some of the mineral line attacks can do in BW is exactly one of my least favorite parts of the game and everybody knows it is much worse in sc2 (in my dream game workers would be significantly more resilient or the quickest worker-attacking moves less quickly devastating) Yeah it's equally interesting that I'm not a great fan of high burst damage in SC2 as you (mainly just stim as it can snowball so hard), but I don't dislike it enough to not like the game as a whole. If the attacks on workers are not as devastating then why do these at all instead of something more worthwhile? Drops lose any sense and we're heading into a game based on lanes and towers I feel | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
You are basically cherrypicking a lot, i could also say "damn that reaver drop in my mineral lines proves that bw is extremely volatile!!". That would be absurd though. sc2 is "more volatile" as in it's way more important to actually look at your army a lot and micro it. That's interesting right, it's more important to micro it. Maybe you think the micro is not fun, but that's another topic. How does this volatility manifest itself? People argue it's apparent in proplay, that we had no bonjwa, etc. That's kinda arbitrary though, we still have top players which are really consistent. If i compare bw to other 1vs1 games i could also make the case that it's volatile when the best of the best only have around 70% winrate for example. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On August 02 2017 00:44 aQuaSC wrote:If the attacks on workers are not as devastating then why do these at all instead of something more worthwhile? Drops lose any sense and we're heading into a game based on lanes and towers I feel Let's say dropships are more resilient, and your units kill one worker every few shots but nothing kills 10 probes in 3 seconds, situations like this actually do happen and we do it with drop or not (some goons or zealots attacking scvs). No lanes and tower, I agree that would just be oversimplifying and loss of depth, just a more balanced and less volatile game in my opinion. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On August 02 2017 00:47 The_Red_Viper wrote: That's not how it works, obviously you have to reason your way to the conclusion that it is "extreme volatility". You are basically cherrypicking a lot, i could also say "damn that reaver drop in my mineral lines proves that bw is extremely volatile!!". That would be absurd though. sc2 is "more volatile" as in it's way more important to actually look at your army a lot and micro it. That's interesting right, it's more important to micro it. Maybe you think the micro is not fun, but that's another topic. How does this volatility manifest itself? People argue it's apparent in proplay, that we had no bonjwa, etc. That's kinda arbitrary though, we still have top players which are really consistent. If i compare bw to other 1vs1 games i could also make the case that it's volatile when the best of the best only have around 70% winrate for example. But I did, and like I said I don't necessarily want to go all over it again every time. It's my choice. What you said about the reaver drop, I totally agree! I think reaver drops are pretty stupid! lol. I've said a few times, if I made any balance change to bw I would reduce the size of reaver AoE for sure (and make scarabs less random). What you said about SC2, well it's more about being constantly on your feet like ready to jump back and forth, and engage and all in at the right time. Whereas in BW you have a lot more phases to engaging, and you can disengage, but you still do have the "being ready to jump back & forth" in it too (more so if you are T, less if you are P, for example). And obviously battles last longer, and there is all this defender advantage, the positioning that takes countless shapes that you have time to set up, etc. And it makes the less volatile, more nuanced tactical and strategic game. Basically, you have more choices to make in a battle, and you get to choose what you keep and take or not a lot more. | ||
|
Jae Zedong
407 Posts
On August 02 2017 00:47 The_Red_Viper wrote: That's not how it works, obviously you have to reason your way to the conclusion that it is "extreme volatility". You are basically cherrypicking a lot, i could also say "damn that reaver drop in my mineral lines proves that bw is extremely volatile!!". That would be absurd though. sc2 is "more volatile" as in it's way more important to actually look at your army a lot and micro it. That's interesting right, it's more important to micro it. I think the word you're looking for is babysit. Kind of rich to call people out for making baseless claims while out of the blue claiming that SC2 armies require more micro. When it could just as well be argued that it takes a whole lot more micro to control a BW army with its janky pathing and small control groups. Having to babysit your blob so it doesn't misstep into ouch does not necessarily equal micro. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 02 2017 00:58 Jae Zedong wrote: I think the word you're looking for is babysit. Kind of rich to call people out for making baseless claims while out of the blue claiming that SC2 armies require more micro. When it could just as well be argued that it takes a whole lot more micro to control a BW army with its janky pathing and small control groups. Having to babysit your blob so it doesn't misstep into ouch does not necessarily equal micro. Call it "babysit" or "micro", it's essentially the same. As i said before, it's fine if you don't like that but it's still micro. They require more "micro" or "babysit" because efficiency in sc2 is more important than in bw. I mean just watching Jaedong play ZvP, he sometimes doesn't give a damn that his hydras are in a storm because he knows he can win through sheer macro advantage. He could decide otherwise and focus more on micro and thus macro a bit worse. I get that this decision has value. But at the same time it means that "microing" or "babysitting" is less important. I am just trying to give a different perspective here, i don't care about "which game is better objectively" because nobody can make sucha claim to begin with. I like both games for different reasons, both are imperfect. | ||
|
Yikes64
Australia5 Posts
On August 01 2017 23:16 lestye wrote: Cash grab? They were 2 huge expansions 2 years apart each. I think BW was more of a cash grab since they rushed it out 8 months after Vanilla Starcraft. But yeah, I could definetely see the argument it had an outdated business model, but those plans were set and F2P became a thing at the last minute (given SC2's long development cycle) They announced day 1 they were going to release 3 expansions. I don't recall them ever saying "and watch out for the Brood War expansion pack" when SC1 was released, perhaps they had it planned though. DLC planned from day 1 always rubs me the wrong way because it's basically saying "well we could make this all one package but then again we could just cut it up and sell it piece by piece." Not to say the expansions weren't big enough to warrant being expansions but for the average consumer it's hard to justify buying 3 copies of what is essentially 1 game. Whenever I ask my friend if he'd ever want to get into WoW with me and my other friends he says "yeah I'd like to but I'd have to buy all the expansions" it's just not attractive to consumers or people that are careful with how they spend their money to have multiple expansions for a single game. But yeah mostly my point was about f2p and unlucky timing that was for Blizzard to use the expansion business model at that time. It was never in Blizzard's control but maybe if the game was coming out a year or more later they would have looked at the f2p model and seen it's success and maybe applied it to Starcraft 2. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
my player's dream: expansions are only free patches, not necessarily new name, donation if you want, and if not necessary, no expansion  | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
While I never dabbled much in UMS (I really only played FMP and some 3v5c/4v4c in BW), I can see how that had an effect on the SCII scene. Same with lack of chat channels and the ladder being an isolating experience. After the infestor/BL period, HoTS came out and it felt a bit fresh at first with Bogus dominating everyone but after WCS (or was it blizzcon?) finals against Shy, the novelty peeled away and revealed the same game again. I tried playing some games but played what, 50 in HoTS before I quit for good. Whenever I tried to play a quick game to see if my passion may come back, I just asked myself why I'm torturing myself haha. LoTV seemed to have taken things into an even worse direction. The idea of forced expanding is frankly quite stupid and doing it BW's way is the much better option. Heck, TL even went to the trouble of explaining how mining etc... can work and how overhauling the economy now is a good option but it got ignored. I enjoyed SCII when it was first released but I can't even watch the game anymore and haven't since Jaedong's ASUS RoG win and the 2014 KT/SKT PL finals. For lack of a better word, the game might as well be dead to me. This doesn't even get into the anti-micro crap that they threw in. Fungal growth rooting you or forcefield blocking retreats or what about concussive shells? Then you had charge which was stupid because with the AI, it was incredibly taxing to face chargelot/archon with MMM. For a casual player, that stuff and others are incredibly frustrating to play against. Blizzard should've just made units that were fun to play overall and buffs counters while trying their best to avoid hard counters. Of course, the double expansions also made people mad. Deciding from the start that you had 3 parts to a game and had to get them all was a terrible move imo. They should've had a different approach because to me, it looked like a clear cashgrab. On August 02 2017 00:58 Jae Zedong wrote: I think the word you're looking for is babysit. Kind of rich to call people out for making baseless claims while out of the blue claiming that SC2 armies require more micro. When it could just as well be argued that it takes a whole lot more micro to control a BW army with its janky pathing and small control groups. Having to babysit your blob so it doesn't misstep into ouch does not necessarily equal micro. there's been cases (unfortunately can't point to the game) where actually microing during an SCII battle in the past has lost you the engagement because the AI is efficient enough that it'll do a concave and other stuff on its own. I've also had this happen to me plenty of times, really frustrating to lose a battle because you tried to micro lol. Agree, babysitting an army isn't exactly fun and I wouldn't consider it micro either but to each his own. | ||
|
Jae Zedong
407 Posts
On August 02 2017 01:07 The_Red_Viper wrote: They require more "micro" or "babysit" because efficiency in sc2 is more important than in bw. How do you arrive at this conclusion? I don't really care that this is your opinion, I just find it funny that you said this in the same breath as calling people out for making baseless claims. And this seems pretty baseless. In BW, the player with the best mechanics wins a lot of the time. Mechanics are super important in BW. So I don't see any supporting argument behind either one of your claims that SC2 requires more micro and requires more efficiency. It's all your opinion. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
If we agree that there are big spells which can do a lot of damage fast then that also means that you have to babysit your army more, because it would be game over to not do so. You call it volatility, i say it at the same time makes the actual micro more important. You call it babysitting, but essentially it is the same. Ofc i am not writing a thesis about all of this, but comparing this to him doing oneliners about disruptors is quite the stretch. On August 02 2017 01:19 BigFan wrote: A lot of what I would post has already been stated. For me, I thought WoL was a dynamic game at first but after playing it enough times, I got sick of the Colossi in TvP and of how things overall always progressed in a similar direction. I watched a lot of the pro scene (or what I could) and streams but even then, eventually I just got really bored of the game. When I tried to get to masters and be serious, I made it to platinum, played a diamond (or two? dunno) then I stopped bothering after a week. It felt like I was trying to do work haha. Ironically, I never have to worry about this with BW. The skill ceiling is so high that so long as I played a great solid and fun game against a friend, it's all good. While I never dabbled much in UMS (I really only played FMP and some 3v5c/4v4c in BW), I can see how that had an effect on the SCII scene. Same with lack of chat channels and the ladder being an isolating experience. After the infestor/BL period, HoTS came out and it felt a bit fresh at first with Bogus dominating everyone but after WCS (or was it blizzcon?) finals against Shy, the novelty peeled away and revealed the same game again. I tried playing some games but played what, 50 in HoTS before I quit for good. Whenever I tried to play a quick game to see if my passion may come back, I just asked myself why I'm torturing myself haha. LoTV seemed to have taken things into an even worse direction. The idea of forced expanding is frankly quite stupid and doing it BW's way is the much better option. Heck, TL even went to the trouble of explaining how mining etc... can work and how overhauling the economy now is a good option but it got ignored. I enjoyed SCII when it was first released but I can't even watch the game anymore and haven't since Jaedong's ASUS RoG win and the 2014 KT/SKT PL finals. For lack of a better word, the game might as well be dead to me. This doesn't even get into the anti-micro crap that they threw in. Fungal growth rooting you or forcefield blocking retreats or what about concussive shells? Then you had charge which was stupid because with the AI, it was incredibly taxing to face chargelot/archon with MMM. For a casual player, that stuff and others are incredibly frustrating to play against. Blizzard should've just made units that were fun to play overall and buffs counters while trying their best to avoid hard counters. Of course, the double expansions also made people mad. Deciding from the start that you had 3 parts to a game and had to get them all was a terrible move imo. They should've had a different approach because to me, it looked like a clear cashgrab. there's been cases (unfortunately can't point to the game) where actually microing during an SCII battle in the past has lost you the engagement because the AI is efficient enough that it'll do a concave and other stuff on its own. I've also had this happen to me plenty of times, really frustrating to lose a battle because you tried to micro lol. Agree, babysitting an army isn't exactly fun and I wouldn't consider it micro either but to each his own. And if i micro my hydras in bw stupidly i am better off not microign them at all as well. Don't see your point tbh. Again, i understand that you might not find it fun, i actually prefer to run my hydras out of storms and snipe hts when the opportunity arises as well, but saying it isn't micro seems absurd. You are actively controlling your units, that's micro. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
KungKras
Sweden484 Posts
On August 01 2017 14:32 Arrinao wrote: You strike a good point here, but you're contradicting yourself a bit with the jab at DK. I'm not defending the guy, he has definitely his share of shit on the game's fate. BUT - speaking of multiplayer shortcomings, terrible terrible damage and softcounters - Dayvie Kim is not at fault here. Dustin Browder is. I sometimes feel bad for Kim for receiving all the flak, because the fact is you can balance something with a faulty base all the way you want and there will still be some spot, which is under less pressure, then another. The most common thing I hear when talking about Starcraft 2 decline was that "SC2 was imbalanced for too long". I disagree. It wasn't just imbalance it was pretty much a design fault: for example the whole flashy Warpgate thingy people were so hyped about turn the race upside down pretty much (and many sc veterans were vocal about what it will do even back then). I was pretty flabbergasted back in 2008 or so when people were cheering at the announcement of Dustin Browder joining Team Two as Lead Game Developer, noting his "great success" with Red Alert 2. I've played the game, it's not bad, but it suffers from the same problem as sc2 - battles are over in a blink and that creates hardcounters with pretty much no way out. I think that the reason people were happy about that back then had a lot to do with the fact that previous C&C, Tiberian Sun, suffered from the exact opposite problem. All units were bullet sponges even the lowliest infantries unless exposed to a flamethrower. In the end I really don't think Dustin Browder was the right man for the job. And come to think about it neither was Christ Metzen on the storyline lol. TLDR: Kim's work was only balancing: that is fiddle around with the numbers here and there, not to just take the whole structure by fire. That was Dbro's work.. Tiberian Sun is one of my favourite games of all time. I loved the slower pacing and the atmosphere, and that units felt solid and powerful. It was a very good RTS for just chilling out. Then Red Alert 2 came and I never understood why everyone seemed to like it. Everything felt like it was made out of glass in that game. Somehow Dustin Browder's footprint is very easy to 'feel' because what SC2 and RA2 have in common is that in their predecessors, units felt solid and believable, while the units of both RA2 and SC2 feel way too fragile, like everything is made out of glass. On August 01 2017 14:49 Ancestral wrote: I don't think Chris Metzen killed SC2, but God, what was he thinking... (Or what has he ever been thinking) Really, why is completely retconning/ignoring his own past stories in a given franchise his hole shtick? It's like "remember that epic shit that happened in the last game/before the expansion? Yeah, none of that matters. We're going to have the same characters but on some totally different shit." The whole story arc of StarCraft is basically what I'd imagine a StarCraft fanfic by a 13 year old would be based just on having seen the multiplayer. It's an awful mess. The most coherent narrative is vanilla SC, which is the only one where he isn't the sole writer. This is so true. Especially the fanfic part. When I was a kid I actually made a custom campaign that was about de-infesting Kerrigan and ressurecting Fenix. Turns out I wasn't that far off from what they actually did. | ||
|
palexhur
Colombia730 Posts
On August 02 2017 01:07 The_Red_Viper wrote: Call it "babysit" or "micro", it's essentially the same. As i said before, it's fine if you don't like that but it's still micro. They require more "micro" or "babysit" because efficiency in sc2 is more important than in bw. I mean just watching Jaedong play ZvP, he sometimes doesn't give a damn that his hydras are in a storm because he knows he can win through sheer macro advantage. He could decide otherwise and focus more on micro and thus macro a bit worse. I get that this decision has value. But at the same time it means that "microing" or "babysitting" is less important. I am just trying to give a different perspective here, i don't care about "which game is better objectively" because nobody can make sucha claim to begin with. I like both games for different reasons, both are imperfect. In which world babysit is the same than micro? sorry but that is a huge false statement. | ||
| ||
