EPTOn September 15 2007 03:39 Klockan3 wrote:
No, but its CS 1.7 with better graphics.
No, but its CS 1.7 with better graphics.
![[image loading]](http://i15.tinypic.com/6b08od1.gif)
Why MBS Is Essential To a Competitive SC2 - Page 21
| Forum Index > Closed |
IntoTheWow
is awesome32278 Posts
| ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
| ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On September 15 2007 03:39 Klockan3 wrote: No, but its CS 1.7 with better graphics. Only 1.7 changed how every single gun works and made grenades retarded. | ||
LosingID8
CA10832 Posts
On September 23 2007 04:44 EvilTeletubby wrote: i'm glad i'm not the only one who sat here watching it get biggerWow, that takes an irritatingly long time to expand | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On September 23 2007 05:14 Jyvblamo wrote: Only 1.7 changed how every single gun works and made grenades retarded. So, its still equal enough to not be called a new game and not all patches are well recieved, such as the 1.6 patch. If blizzard made sc2 a copy of sc1 with updated pathfindings, graphics and refined stats with no other changes it would be comparable to cs vs cs:s, but now thats not the case and theyre making a whole new game. | ||
|
YinYang69
United States255 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On September 23 2007 06:25 YinYang69 wrote: I think all you guys arguing against mbs smartcasting etc. are failing to see the big picture. Sure boxer 12 BC lockdown won't be as impressive but since the scale of battle will be so much larger, the interface easier to use battles will look insane. 12 bc lockdown, emp being thrown, restoration being use on those lockdown BC, relocking the BC, focus firing with wraiths, yamamoto being flung left and right, etc etc. Same with the macro aspect. OOV macro won't be as impressive, but macro is going to be evolve, and larger in scale and OOV will instead have 20 facs producing constantly, scv being made instantly, no hiccups on supply, great unit balance, strategic and great building placements etc. SC2 will be a different game not just SC1 with a nicer skin, we should wait and see on how all these UI changes fit in, but try to look at it as SC2 not SC1 with nicer graphics. In the end of the day games more often than not benefit from improve interfaces. even if the battles look insane the game will be worthless if its too easy to do everything. it'll look cool, but if its not hard to do the game has 0 competetive value. | ||
|
YinYang69
United States255 Posts
| ||
|
Brutalisk
794 Posts
I don't see how this is easier or worse... it just emphasizes a different, IMHO more important, aspect of the game. We'll see much more spectacular and intense battles because the players finally have the time for it. Instead of saying "whoa he has 10 new tanks standing there!!!!1111 i think i just came" you'll say "whoa wtf did he just do this and that and that?" Players who think the SC1 UI is necessary will either have to adapt and learn to play the game instead of playing the UI, or just keep on playing SC1 (no one is forced to switch to SC2). I'm happy about the current SC2 status because I've always liked the "oldschool" style of BW, and am not as happy about the current macro war style. | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32278 Posts
On September 23 2007 06:18 Klockan3 wrote: So, its still equal enough to not be called a new game and not all patches are well recieved, such as the 1.6 patch. If blizzard made sc2 a copy of sc1 with updated pathfindings, graphics and refined stats with no other changes it would be comparable to cs vs cs:s, but now thats not the case and theyre making a whole new game. Source is a totally different game from 1.6 | ||
|
StarN
United States2587 Posts
On September 23 2007 04:44 EvilTeletubby wrote: that's what she said lolololWow, that takes an irritatingly long time to expand | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On September 23 2007 12:12 IntoTheWow wrote: Source is a totally different game from 1.6 They rebalanced the guns, edited the map layouts a bit and beacuse its in a new engine it got better physics and graphics. Aside from the physics and graphics, how is that not a patch? And didnt 1.6 make huge changes to the game for the worse? They didnt make a lot of changes, but those they did shake the game a lot, and even there you can see that they want more automatic weapons and in source they did take the full step and buffed automatic weapons a lot, wich people didnt like beacuse sprayweapons = less skill than the bursting needed for cs since theres a bigger chance to hit without aiming correctly. They couldve done exactly the same changes to original cs, and as such i see it as a patch, eventhough they did it in a new engine. | ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On September 23 2007 10:55 YinYang69 wrote: Who say it'll be easy to do. What I'm saying is the old 12 BC lockdown might not as insane, but what I just posted will be the new benchmark for insane. everything you described is likely to be quite easy given the new interface. oov already has nearly flawless macro, the new interface with mbs and automining dumbs it down to the point where oov macro will be commonplace. 4-8 keystrokes can produce a round of scvs (which will go to mine on their own) and the next batch of units, without ever looking away from the battle. the only thing left will be building depots (which can now be qued) and when/where to expo. it almost entirely eliminates macro from the game. as for micro, watch the battles in one of the hour long epic progamer pvz games where both sides use every unit in the game. the players already use their units to near-perfection. the reason those games are so entertaining and amazing is because it is so hard for them to do that, and everyone watching knows how hard it is. implement smart casting and improved unit ai, as well as giving the players all the time in the world since they dont need to worry about macro, and anyone will be able to do it, meaning it wont be special anymore. if you eliminate the importance of mechanics you eliminate any chance sc2 has of becoming the next starcraft, progaming-wise. theres not going to be a strong competetive scene for a game that is easy to play mechanically. sc is where it is because being really good at it requires mastering both parts of gameplay, the mechanics of the game itself, and the strategy of the game. taking out the mechanics is basically chopping sc in half. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
Has ANYONE played fpm here? Its easy, and there are REALLY good people at it, but it seems anyone competent at normal sc quickly becomes a dominant fpm player and get bored. Im worried something similar will happen. The macro will ridiculouisly easy, you can conentrate easily on micro. | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32278 Posts
On September 23 2007 18:46 Klockan3 wrote: They rebalanced the guns, edited the map layouts a bit and beacuse its in a new engine it got better physics and graphics. Aside from the physics and graphics, how is that not a patch? And didnt 1.6 make huge changes to the game for the worse? They didnt make a lot of changes, but those they did shake the game a lot, and even there you can see that they want more automatic weapons and in source they did take the full step and buffed automatic weapons a lot, wich people didnt like beacuse sprayweapons = less skill than the bursting needed for cs since theres a bigger chance to hit without aiming correctly. They couldve done exactly the same changes to original cs, and as such i see it as a patch, eventhough they did it in a new engine. A new engine is NOT a patch. Recoil works different for each gun, the hitboxes are a joke compared to 1.6. Its like comparing Starcraft to Armies of Exigo. They are 2 completely different games. I can be good at 1.6 and totally suck in source. That doesn't happen when you patch a game. | ||
|
TheShizno
United States112 Posts
And to LuisMl8: It's not like communism, it's more like capitalism. The tools needed to are cheap and easy to use, but those with better skill will still rise to the top. Just because someone can lockdown 12 carriers doesn't mean that they'll instantly win (and so far lockdown or irradiate is not in, so those arguments don't quite work, although smart casting will definitely make lockdown and irradiate a bit overpowered). MBS can still be implemented, and it will mainly only affect the lower tiers, because the upper tiers are already so good, and it will really only improve the upper tier, because, as orangedude said, it will allow the pros to achieve closer to perfect micro (or something along those lines, I don't quite remember xD ). Also, remember that this is about MBS, not automining or smart casting. In my opinion, both sides of MBS have already debated their sides completely in the first 19-20 pages, and mostly it's up to Blizzard to find the middle ground. But I could be wrong. But that's what it seems like, considering how the topic was dead for a while. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On September 24 2007 04:20 IntoTheWow wrote: Its like comparing Starcraft to Armies of Exigo. They are 2 completely different games. I can be good at 1.6 and totally suck in source. That doesn't happen when you patch a game. Tthis can certainly happen when you patch a game, its just Blizzard patches that are so seamless that you hardly would notice them if you didnt look directly at the stats. And saying that exigo to starcraft is like source to cs is far from true. Eventhough CS playstyle isnt copied as far as i know except for some UT mod so i cant get a better example. But you got the same weapons, same money system, same maps, same missions only thing is that they tweaked all of them and then left original CS and just continued to update source. Im pretty sure that if they werent to make source they wouldve updated CS to play a lot like source do eventhough some engine limits wouldnt allow the penetration physics to be as advanced. Also im pretty sure that a player that were pro at 1.3 would get owned at 1.5, same as how they changed 1.6 a lot. Now i know that you think source changed "EVERYTHING" and that its nothing like cs 1.6/1.5, however theyre basically the same game with a bit different tweakings. If they fixed the hitboxes and reduced the accuracy of spraying it would be exactly the same game, wich is why its more a patch(A failed patch if you wish) than a new game. | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32278 Posts
The only thing that remains is a texture feel for counter strike 1.6 in source and the objective. Seriously, did you ever play 1.6 competitively or source? And by the way: a new engine = a new game. There's no word tweaking that can change that. | ||
|
bottomtier
United States23 Posts
How would the new Toss cannons be affected if MBS were not present? I think this proposes an interesting dilemma, as being able to bind only one cannon at a time to a hotkey would seriously nerf their potential or effectiveness as a dynamic base defense. If cannons were static as in BW, this would not be an issue, but one must wonder whether having mobile cannons would even be worth it without some sort of MBS. From what I gather, a lot of forumers eschew MBS for the precise reason that it simplifies and dumbs down unit production, but if we see more buildings like the new Toss cannons, i.e. buildings not at all concerned with fielding armies, how would players react? | ||
| ||
