|
MURICA15980 Posts
On November 30 2011 10:35 Biggun69 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 10:29 Klogon wrote:On November 30 2011 10:21 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 30 2011 10:12 Zzoram wrote:On November 30 2011 10:07 hypercube wrote:On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote:On November 30 2011 09:09 Klogon wrote:
That said, I think a harder SC2 that required more mechanics to master would be a far superior game than it is now. We don't need to make it as hard as BW, but I do think Blizzard missed the perfect compromise by drifting too far to the easy side. I would have liked a harder game too, but nowadays people are just lazy and don't like to play complicated games. And producing a much more user friendly game will make more profit to blizzard, I don't think they have any intention to try to integrate hard mechanics that would make the difference between a bad and a good player. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectatingit's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision. I disagree on this. Seeing idle workers is a good indication that the player's mechanics is slipping. Same with misrallied drones. Not using chrono boost or queen energy is the same indicator, and it still happens despite the game supposedly being too easy. If it's so easy, why do 400apm players still not use all their chronoboost? Obviously there is still room for mechanical improvement from top players, even with the easier macro. The real reason they don't is that there is too little incentive to do it, their apm is better spent somewhere else. In term of spectating, it's also less visible. Plus having a hard game to play brings on strategic depth in that you have to choose what you need to focus on. You need a good balance between that and being stupidly hard. Plus larva inject is a terrible mechanic that has made zerg macro 10 times more boring. It's nothing more than a gimmick that has brought zerg closer to the other races by making larva a much less important ressource. For SC2 players to really understand how BW players feel about some of the new features like auto-mine, imagine if Starcraft 3 came out and there was an "auto-inject" option for Queens. Wouldn't that just be... "too easy" to do? Sure, it removes needless clicking, but just right-clicking "inject" to make it an auto-cast skill midway through the game just seems wrong. SC3 fanboys would be saying SC2 had too much mindless clicking for stupid things like Queen injects, when you could be using that time to "strategize" instead. Okay, so I'm not say that the all the SC2 UI features that made the game easier are bad or whatever, but hopefully this example helps you understand how BW fans feel. To be honest, the Queen Inject ability is actually a pretty boring and repetitive "automated work" that one must do as a zerg simply to make macro more difficult. You could actually compare it to telling drones to go mine. The choice between injecting larvae, spreading creep, or saving for transfuse is not something zerg players lose sleep over. Larvae inject could be tweaked, but that would severely mess with the balance of the game. Well to some extent sc2 adds new mechanics such as creep spread, larvae injects, etc to add more skill to the game. There is NO WAY that blizzard could make a game in this day and age without worker rallies, multiple building control groups, etc.
It's true. And this is where I have entertained the idea of "User Interface" upgrades at the command center / hatchery / nexus.
I think there could be compromise that would follow intuitively into the spirit of RTS. Essentially, each player is a General that is controlling and ordering their army around. But like in any military army or organization, communication and technology really helps the generals control their army. So why not introduce a new set of upgrades kind of like weapon-armor upgrades: Unit-Building selection upgrades.
Limit unit selection, buildings, etc to some number that will take you through the early/mid game, but be insufficient for the mid/late game. And then have a "UI Upgrade - Improved Communications" at Tier 2 where you can double (and the next step triple) your unit selection and building selection capacity. Hell, you could even go all fancy with this and make the unit selection maximum based on supply (You can only control 30 supply at a time, or something), which would make lings easier to group in huge groups, but harder to control 15+ mutas, etc.
This would allow casual players who float tons of money to upgrade that anyways and have an easier time in late game, but allow pros who do not need such upgrades to differentiate themselves by not having to waste resources on such an upgrade. Knowing that certain key timings require that you do not upgrade these 300/300 UI upgrades, or that certain pros moved 200 zerglings / 40 mutas across the map without them would certainly make games much more impressive, especially when they have the option to upgrade it for a price but chose not to and still won.
|
On November 30 2011 10:37 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
In my experience, battles in SC2 are more spectacular, visually pleasing, and much faster paced and confusing, than BW battles. It simulates real war in a more accurate manner, in my opinion. Which, admittedly, is worth about as much as much as the space it takes up...
So you like the fat that sc2 battles are a huge and short mess ?
I mean why not, but oO
As for simulating real war better, I mean, if you're looking for realism, they're are much better franchise than starcraft, and I am not convinced 5 sec ball vs ball is a good representation of warfare...
|
I would much rather watch a game of strategy and tactical control over the intense micromangement of the macro mechanics in BW.
I would rather see players lose or win based off sieging or unsieging tanks at the right time or doing a drops or having the drops denied over he didn't tell his probes to mine.
|
On November 30 2011 10:37 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
In my opinion, SC2 is a much more exciting game to watch. And not only because of the pretty lights and flashes, though those do help a whole lot. It's more fast-paced, the action is usually big and one-sided and it seems like the players aren't even CLOSE to mastering the game. Which makes it really exciting to see new strategies coming out that destroy old strategies; and resurgences of old strategies that start dominating again.
It would seem to me that a 1/1/1 being easy is a problem with the quality of opponent, not the quality of the game itself. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a harder, and therefore less accessible, game is not necessarily a better game. And I do believe that most of the shortcuts added in by Blizzard are vast improvements; freeing up more time to be spent on, frankly, more interesting parts of the game.
In my experience, battles in SC2 are more spectacular, visually pleasing, and much faster paced and confusing, than BW battles. It simulates real war in a more accurate manner, in my opinion. Which, admittedly, is worth about as much as much as the space it takes up...
what? I guess it's your own opinion.
However from my opinion, watching 200 supply ball vs ball with similar colors, and textures does not interest me at all.
Nor does that represent war accurately as well. IRL which army sents out mass marines in a huge clump where they can get demolished by tanks, aircraft, and such. Also who's going to act as meatshield aka "meatshield"?
|
On November 30 2011 10:37 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
In my opinion, SC2 is a much more exciting game to watch. And not only because of the pretty lights and flashes, though those do help a whole lot. It's more fast-paced, the action is usually big and one-sided and it seems like the players aren't even CLOSE to mastering the game. Which makes it really exciting to see new strategies coming out that destroy old strategies; and resurgences of old strategies that start dominating again.
It would seem to me that a 1/1/1 being easy is a problem with the quality of opponent, not the quality of the game itself. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a harder, and therefore less accessible, game is not necessarily a better game. And I do believe that most of the shortcuts added in by Blizzard are vast improvements; freeing up more time to be spent on, frankly, more interesting parts of the game.
In my experience, battles in SC2 are more spectacular, visually pleasing, and much faster paced and confusing, than BW battles. It simulates real war in a more accurate manner, in my opinion. Which, admittedly, is worth about as much as much as the space it takes up...
I do think SC2 is exciting to watch but I don't think it can really touch how exciting Broodwar is. There are less all-ins than in Starcraft 2 matches, and less games where players get to max death balls and 1a at each other. That "big one-sided action" you talk about is precisely the problem IMO. I mean just today I watched Jaedong vs. Mind, and the game was almost non-stop strategic action where it was little tit for tat engagements and where having good control and good decision-making was paramount. Some games in SC2 literally come down to one big battle.
Speaking of control, I think BW is much more impressive in that department. Micro plays in Broodwar are far more skill-intensive and far more interesting to watch. Watching Light's wraith micro, JD's muta control, Zero's queens is an absolute thing of beauty precisely because it requires a lot of multi-task and skill to pull off and be able to macro and do other things at the same time.
Just my opinion.
|
Actually, yeah. I like big, huge, fast-paced and confusing battles. The confusion is natural in any game, for a moment everything is smashing and it's hard to tell what's going on, and big, sudden and sweeping movements are made that carry the day. It's all very easy to watch, for a lazy spectator like myself, and extremely visually pleasing.
I like American Football. I can analyze strategies behind plays, know what players and plays are good, read a defense to predict blitzes and coverages. Basically, in every play, there is a story. Someone who is savvy can read that story by just seeing a play. Every tiny minutia that goes into a successful or unsuccessful play is there in the open to be seen.
My family also likes football. Except they don't analyze or even care. They see a bunch of athletic phenoms smashing into each other with big, sudden, and sweeping movements that carry the day. I feel like SC2 is the same thing. There is plenty of strategy involved, and little things make the difference; but for the casual fan, it's easy to access and understand because it's so confusing and fast-paced. It would seem counter-intuitive, but in my opinion, it makes perfect sense.
edit: I'm not trying to imply that BW doesn't have any of those things; just that I see those things in SC2 and like what I see. I've never really watched all that much BW, mainly because... and this may sound elitist or lazy or whatever, but: the graphics are inaccessible. I can barely tell what's going on half the time, and not because of pretty lights, but because the graphics are old, and everything looks very pixiliated. Just my opinion though... and like I said, I'm a lazy and casual fan. I'm not exactly the person they are trying to appeal to, so...
|
On November 30 2011 10:55 Kharnage wrote:
I would much rather watch a game of strategy and tactical control over the intense micromangement of the macro mechanics in BW.
I would rather see players lose or win based off sieging or unsieging tanks at the right time or doing a drops or having the drops denied over he didn't tell his probes to mine.
Well, you should probably watch pro-bw in this case.
|
When people say they find ball vs ball for ten seconds more interesting than BW fights I honestly question if they have actually seen a BW fight...
|
On November 30 2011 10:50 Klogon wrote:
It's true. And this is where I have entertained the idea of "User Interface" upgrades at the command center / hatchery / nexus.
I think there could be compromise that would follow intuitively into the spirit of RTS. Essentially, each player is a General that is controlling and ordering their army around. But like in any military army or organization, communication and technology really helps the generals control their army. So why not introduce a new set of upgrades kind of like weapon-armor upgrades: Unit-Building selection upgrades.
Limit unit selection, buildings, etc to some number that will take you through the early/mid game, but be insufficient for the mid/late game. And then have a "UI Upgrade - Improved Communications" at Tier 2 where you can double (and the next step triple) your unit selection and building selection capacity. Hell, you could even go all fancy with this and make the unit selection maximum based on supply (You can only control 30 supply at a time, or something), which would make lings easier to group in huge groups, but harder to control 15+ mutas, etc.
This would allow casual players who float tons of money to upgrade that anyways and have an easier time in late game, but allow pros who do not need such upgrades to differentiate themselves by not having to waste resources on such an upgrade. Knowing that certain key timings require that you do not upgrades these 300/300 UI upgrades or certain pros moved 200 zerglings / 40 mutas across the map without them would certainly make more it impressive, especially when they have the option to upgrade it for a price but chose not to and still won.
Could you maybe please kidnap and hypnotise Blizzard's design team?
|
On November 30 2011 10:00 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 09:09 Klogon wrote:
Disclaimer: I do not play nor follow BW anymore, and play/follow SC2 pretty actively now.
I find that people who think SC2 is more strategical than BW, often times citing reasons such as being less mechanically intensive, are people who either 1) do not understand either game enough to really know what strategy is at the highest levels, or 2) think they are some strategical mastermind that is being held back by their poor mechanics.
The awesome part about BW was that mechanical limitations factored into your strategy. Knowing what you or your opponent is physically capable is itself knowledge that you take into account for when you choose your strategy, and also helps to distinguish the pros at the highest levels.
That said, I think a harder SC2 that required more mechanics to master would be a far superior game than it is now. We don't need to make it as hard as BW, but I do think Blizzard missed the perfect compromise by drifting too far to the easy side. I agree completely! While I accept that making units respond better while moving down a ramp is a good change, seeing people put 100 zerglings or 30 mutas on 1 control group or macroing without ever looking at their base is just facepalm-inducing. Another thing nobody seems to be pointing out, I think the lowered skill ceiling is also a huge contributor to the negativity of the fans as well. In BW, watching someone doing a well-executed Gundam rush was incredibly exciting. Rekrul, upon going to Korea to train, said that Gundam was insanely good at TvP. ForGG was a player famous for his timing attacks. Sync was known as the "Fireworks Terran" for his 3 barracks stim rush vs Zerg... which was considered an exciting, skillful play! If someone were to play like any of those guys in SC2, he would get universal hate from fans for being a "cheesy" or "all-in" player. The easy mechanics of SC2 have made it so that the quality of play from pro-gamers is not impressive to the fans until the player takes 3 bases, whereas BW fans were much more appreciative of well-executed strategies regardless of how many bases the player built. Even now, there are quite a few pro players and their fans who want the game to be patched so that you can never win on 1 or 2 bases. Has the de-emphasis of mechanics in SC2 really given the game more strategic depth or made it a better game? Judging from the excitement of LR threads in BW when an aggressive strategy is done against anyone other than Bisu, and the number of reports submitted when the same thing happens in SC2, I'd say no. Makes me think of the "deathball" stuff in sc1 vs sc2 threads.
A common argument for that a physical skill ceiling is impossible to reach in sc2 is the(for humans) unlimited micro potential.
A common argument for why people don't micro the individual units much instead of using the deathball is that "it's impossible!", "impossible because huge fights can be over in 5 seconds" and variations of things like that.
Might sound paradoxical but perhaps the macro is too easy and the micro too hard in sc2 from a viewers(viewers like me at anyway) perspective.
It's slowly getting better but as a viewer I always disliked the "sloppy" micro sc2 tend to produce. It doesn't annoy me as much when I play though for some reason, perhaps because I'm not very good.
|
On November 30 2011 11:03 1Eris1 wrote:
When people say they find ball vs ball for ten seconds than BW fights I honestly question if they have actually seen a BW fight...
watched some bw games lately (thanks to the TL streamlist!), i truly wish they fix the sc2 ball army movement in the later expansion....the battle of the dragoon army or hydra+lurker army marching towards the enemy base looks way more epic than the glops of units move together in sc2.
sc2's hydra+roaches army looks so ugly.
|
On November 30 2011 10:55 Kharnage wrote:
I would much rather watch a game of strategy and tactical control over the intense micromangement of the macro mechanics in BW.
I would rather see players lose or win based off sieging or unsieging tanks at the right time or doing a drops or having the drops denied over he didn't tell his probes to mine.
Lol maybe watch one BW game and you would realize that your statement is 100% wrong
|
On November 30 2011 10:55 Kharnage wrote:
I would much rather watch a game of strategy and tactical control over the intense micromangement of the macro mechanics in BW.
I would rather see players lose or win based off sieging or unsieging tanks at the right time or doing a drops or having the drops denied over he didn't tell his probes to mine.
Clearly you haven't been watching broodwar or even watch flash play terran mech , because every moves he does it almost perfectly , setting up a great position , pulling his opponent to a trap , flanking from every corner of an unexpected push . Some one hasn't been watching broodwar and thinking broodwar it's just micro and macro into victory ......
On November 30 2011 11:00 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Actually, yeah. I like big, huge, fast-paced and confusing battles. The confusion is natural in any game, for a moment everything is smashing and it's hard to tell what's going on, and big, sudden and sweeping movements are made that carry the day. It's all very easy to watch, for a lazy spectator like myself, and extremely visually pleasing.
I like American Football. I can analyze strategies behind plays, know what players and plays are good, read a defense to predict blitzes and coverages. Basically, in every play, there is a story. Someone who is savvy can read that story by just seeing a play. Every tiny minutia that goes into a successful or unsuccessful play is there in the open to be seen.
My family also likes football. Except they don't analyze or even care. They see a bunch of athletic phenoms smashing into each other with big, sudden, and sweeping movements that carry the day. I feel like SC2 is the same thing. There is plenty of strategy involved, and little things make the difference; but for the casual fan, it's easy to access and understand because it's so confusing and fast-paced. It would seem counter-intuitive, but in my opinion, it makes perfect sense.
edit: I'm not trying to imply that BW doesn't have any of those things; just that I see those things in SC2 and like what I see. I've never really watched all that much BW, mainly because... and this may sound elitist or lazy or whatever, but: the graphics are inaccessible. I can barely tell what's going on half the time, and not because of pretty lights, but because the graphics are old, and everything looks very pixiliated. Just my opinion though... and like I said, I'm a lazy and casual fan. I'm not exactly the person they are trying to appeal to, so...
In you first paragraph you stated that confusion is natural , it isn't natural in my opinion, I show broodwar to my casual friends and my friend will go huh , wow you can make so much units and flank so well, good positioning and control , I don't think there is much confusion in any broodwar games , besides you don't need be active or lazy spectator to enjoy a game .
Well I am great counter strategist if it's happening in replay in broodwar , I can study my opponents behaviour ,timings and pattern to come up with great snipe builds , however that is a different thing when I am playing , As a reactionary player who based on getting his units tailored to my enemies units , I find it demanding that I have not only juggle between macro and micro mechanics , I have to keep making strategy on the fly to win the end game .
So much for in comparison with real life sport , the only game that kept me interested in real life is probably golf . Having guts,tenacity,never ending courage to keep going through the battle to win the game , it's basically still a demanding sport besides looking very easy from the spectator point of view . Swing mechanics , problems with your game , it's a battle against yourself and I can relate it with broodwar .
Oh since you haven't even watch bw extensively and then threw it aside because according to you , think BW "graphics are inaccessible " how is it inaccessible ? when units colour and design is simplified , no messy 3d graphics and cartoon like units are hovering across the monitor , Siege tanks looks like a siege tank, maps are clear , objectives are clear , Terran units , Zerg units and dragoon units , when they die they die , they explode in the battle immediately .
Watching sc2 games on the other hand it's so messy that I don't even know what in the world is happening most of the game consist of blob vs blob action and as a bw fan who is so custom to having games being battle at every point of the game , to inch out of the advantage , It's really hard for me to have interest in sc2 . Having clear view of everything in broodwar is what made it spectator friendly and for you who didn't even bother watching bw games to dismissed it like that it doesn't give weight to your argument .
|
On November 30 2011 10:55 Kharnage wrote:
I would much rather watch a game of strategy and tactical control over the intense micromangement of the macro mechanics in BW.
I would rather see players lose or win based off sieging or unsieging tanks at the right time or doing a drops or having the drops denied over he didn't tell his probes to mine.
bw has all of that you mentioned: strategy, tactical control along with intense micro and macro.
they removed worker rally and put in other mechanics to balance it (mule, chrono, larva, creep)
unit production in bw pretty much the same as warp-ins. (look somewhere else, click click click click click click)
dont make it seem like bw is some automobile from early 1900's because it isnt. there is no issue with micro/macro in bw, sc2 is just easier when it comes to interface, not that bw is worse.
|
what? I guess it's your own opinion.
However from my opinion, watching 200 supply ball vs ball with similar colors, and textures does not interest me at all.
Nor does that represent war accurately as well. IRL which army sents out mass marines in a huge clump where they can get demolished by tanks, aircraft, and such. Also who's going to act as meatshield aka "meatshield"?
So rarely do any of the games I've watched get to the 200/200 point; and even if they did, the battle is rarely determined by whose ball is bigger.
Not all war has been fought with tanks, aircraft, and such. Meatshields have a long and storied history in combat, and furthermore, the "represents real war" better comment was about the quickness of the decisions that need to be made, and the fact that when it rains it pours.
|
To play devil's advocate regarding unit pathing and army ball effect: a lot of what it does in BW is just prolong the inevitable loss.
+ Show Spoiler +I was watching Flash against Jaehoon yesterday, where Jaehoon was just running around with dragoons and zealots against Flash's mech army. It lasted a lot longer than it was interesting because it takes a while for spread out armies to reach a conclusion.
So in that sense, you could argue that SC2 is superior.
|
Also this seems like a good a thread as any to ask this in and please forgive me I've only been following BW since slightly before the last OSL finals so my knowledge is still pretty weak. Have there ever been games in BW where the entire map was mined out? Have there ever been games like at dreamhack ( mana vs goody or tod vs happy ( and yes I know this happens in the gsl and other tournaments as well)) where players split the map and then won't engage each other until it pretty much happens by accident? Most of the BW games I have watched have little lulls in the excitement but I've never spent 20 minutes staring at a game wondering when someone was going to at least move a unit.
I love both games and I greatly enjoy watching starcraft 2 most of the time but I could use less games where both players just outright avoid their opponent for as long as possible. If this happens in BW as well i'll just accept it is one of those strats i don;t like but is inevitable.
|
On November 30 2011 11:19 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:Show nested quote +
what? I guess it's your own opinion.
However from my opinion, watching 200 supply ball vs ball with similar colors, and textures does not interest me at all.
Nor does that represent war accurately as well. IRL which army sents out mass marines in a huge clump where they can get demolished by tanks, aircraft, and such. Also who's going to act as meatshield aka "meatshield"?
So rarely do any of the games I've watched get to the 200/200 point; and even if they did, the battle is rarely determined by whose ball is bigger. Not all war has been fought with tanks, aircraft, and such. Meatshields have a long and storied history in combat, and furthermore, the "represents real war" better comment was about the quickness of the decisions that need to be made, and the fact that when it rains it pours.
Really? Because (especially) when Zergs play in SC2 in a TON of the games they end up getting to 200/200, sometimes in as little as 13-14 minutes.
I just don't see what's so much better about one big engagement that decides the game as opposed to a series of smaller but more tactical and more micro-intensive battles.
|
On November 30 2011 11:22 ladyumbra wrote:
Also this seems like a good a thread as any to ask this in and please forgive me I've only been following BW since slightly before the last OSL finals so my knowledge is still pretty weak. Have there ever been games in BW where the entire map was mined out? Have there ever been games like at dreamhack ( mana vs goody or tod vs happy ( and yes I know this happens in the gsl and other tournaments as well)) where players split the map and then won't engage each other until it pretty much happens by accident? Most of the BW games I have watched have little lulls in the excitement but I've never spent 20 minutes staring at a game wondering when someone was going to at least move a unit.
I love both games and I greatly enjoy watching starcraft 2 most of the time but I could use less games where both players just outright avoid their opponent for as long as possible. If this happens in BW as well i'll just accept it is one of those strats i don;t like but is inevitable.
Stork vs GGPlay and Jangbi vs Flash? Not too sure if the maps were mined out. Also, basically any prolonged game with a Terran in it hahaha
To the people who say the battles in SC2 are as exciting as in BW... are you kidding?!?? I love playing and watching SC2 but really, the battles are a far cry from BW (I enjoy the non-battle aspects of SC2 more - lowered supply depots look cute)
|
On November 30 2011 11:19 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:Show nested quote +
what? I guess it's your own opinion.
However from my opinion, watching 200 supply ball vs ball with similar colors, and textures does not interest me at all.
Nor does that represent war accurately as well. IRL which army sents out mass marines in a huge clump where they can get demolished by tanks, aircraft, and such. Also who's going to act as meatshield aka "meatshield"?
So rarely do any of the games I've watched get to the 200/200 point; and even if they did, the battle is rarely determined by whose ball is bigger. Not all war has been fought with tanks, aircraft, and such. Meatshields have a long and storied history in combat, and furthermore, the "represents real war" better comment was about the quickness of the decisions that need to be made, and the fact that when it rains it pours.
Well, 200/200 ball was a big exaggerated maybe around 180~190/200, anyway the player with bigger ball does win the game. Please provide a vod to prove me wrong 
About the war, sure you need quick decision to combat the war, but that does not mean you can just "1a" into enemy territory.
You can always plan ahead of time, such as position your army in efficient ways
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
