EPTTLO on Macro Mechanics - Page 9
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
| ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On October 06 2015 18:05 pzea469 wrote: I feel like there would still be a ton of things to do in the game with the macro mechanics out. No one would ever play a perfect game of starcraft. The spreading of attention and having to decide where to devote your attention to would still exist in the form of harassing while macroing, or multiple small battles going on at once, or all those things combined. There would just be one less artificial thing to worry about, but it wouldn't make the game any easier in the sense that you'd still always have something to do in a competitive game and you'd still have to play just as hard to get the W. While it's true that no one will play a perfect game in that scenario, I think its undeniable that it reduces the playstyle diversity. You would always have something to do, but you're limiting the macro sense down to a point where everyone would have it be exactly the same. SC2 already has this problem relative to Brood War, where it even the top few players had stronger macro than their peers whereas in SC2 the gap is much smaller (you might even able to make the argument that its nonexistent in some cases). Having components like that gives people greater options in what to focus on and therefore express themselves in their play, which is the beauty of StarCraft at the core. | ||
|
Bazik
Portugal104 Posts
On October 06 2015 02:11 Spyridon wrote: I find TLO's post very... idealistic. It speaks as if macro, micro, and mechanics are all equivalent skills. But in reality, throughout SC2's lifespan, these 3 things were not on equal footing. Macro and mechanics meant far, far more than micro. I do agree that unit compositions too mean too much, hard counters counter TOO hard. And I agree that it is a good thing that players have to choose where to spend their attention. But I have one major disagreement: I disagree with the conclusion that macro mechanics are the answer. Mechanics such as this should not be what separates "good" macro from "bad" macro. There should be more strategy involved, and making functions take "more clicks" should not be where players spend their attention. In my opinion, RTS's are stuck in the 90's. They are using outdated game design, and because SC2 is so well established as a tournament game, they are scared to change that. In game design, newer iterations should make controls easier, not harder. If you want to do something and it takes 5 clicks, in newer iterations of the game it should NOT take more than 5 clicks, and ideally it should take less. You see this in every genre of game, even the top tournament games/genres. Yes, that will free up clicks. Yes, players will have more "attention" to spend other places. So what should we do then? We should add some new mechanics that contribute to the game strategically! That has been my issue with macro mechanics all along. They are not well designed mechanics! More mechanics in the game are good, but they should be sufficiently rewarding, they should contribute strategically, they should be something that both players want to pay attention to & exploit to their advantage. They should encourage player vs player interaction. These current mechanics do very few, if any of these things... Controls, they should be improved. That is evolution and innovation in game design. And with the extra attention/APM offered, more mechanics that substantially affect the gameplay should be added. Not poorly designed mechanics such as spawn larvae that are a requirement more than an asset. The positives TLO mentioned that the macro mechanics have... Many other game mechanics can offer those same assets, and contribute much more to gameplay, than just making players have to spend their "attention and clicks" there. It should be more than that!! These mechanics don't offer any interesting play/counterplays. Even in TLO's explanation, they are simply just "another place to spend your attention". I honestly believe RTS's popularity is dying out, not because of MOBA's, but because the game design has stagnated. Because of this, I do not see any new RTS's gaining any real popularity until one of them shakes up the genre and breaks the mold. As everyone here knows, a well designed RTS can be amazing. But overall, SC2 is not very innovative compared to SC/BW at all. And most of the updates/changes in game design have not been positive ones over the previous iterations. Economy, unit design, the damage/armor system... all of those things have degraded in the transition of SC1>SC2, and have caused endless problems that still have not been solved after so many years... Very well written post. | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On October 06 2015 02:11 Spyridon wrote: + Show Spoiler + I find TLO's post very... idealistic. It speaks as if macro, micro, and mechanics are all equivalent skills. But in reality, throughout SC2's lifespan, these 3 things were not on equal footing. Macro and mechanics meant far, far more than micro. I do agree that unit compositions too mean too much, hard counters counter TOO hard. And I agree that it is a good thing that players have to choose where to spend their attention. But I have one major disagreement: I disagree with the conclusion that macro mechanics are the answer. Mechanics such as this should not be what separates "good" macro from "bad" macro. There should be more strategy involved, and making functions take "more clicks" should not be where players spend their attention. In my opinion, RTS's are stuck in the 90's. They are using outdated game design, and because SC2 is so well established as a tournament game, they are scared to change that. In game design, newer iterations should make controls easier, not harder. If you want to do something and it takes 5 clicks, in newer iterations of the game it should NOT take more than 5 clicks, and ideally it should take less. You see this in every genre of game, even the top tournament games/genres. Yes, that will free up clicks. Yes, players will have more "attention" to spend other places. So what should we do then? We should add some new mechanics that contribute to the game strategically! That has been my issue with macro mechanics all along. They are not well designed mechanics! More mechanics in the game are good, but they should be sufficiently rewarding, they should contribute strategically, they should be something that both players want to pay attention to & exploit to their advantage. They should encourage player vs player interaction. These current mechanics do very few, if any of these things... Controls, they should be improved. That is evolution and innovation in game design. And with the extra attention/APM offered, more mechanics that substantially affect the gameplay should be added. Not poorly designed mechanics such as spawn larvae that are a requirement more than an asset. The positives TLO mentioned that the macro mechanics have... Many other game mechanics can offer those same assets, and contribute much more to gameplay, than just making players have to spend their "attention and clicks" there. It should be more than that!! These mechanics don't offer any interesting play/counterplays. Even in TLO's explanation, they are simply just "another place to spend your attention". I honestly believe RTS's popularity is dying out, not because of MOBA's, but because the game design has stagnated. Because of this, I do not see any new RTS's gaining any real popularity until one of them shakes up the genre and breaks the mold. As everyone here knows, a well designed RTS can be amazing. But overall, SC2 is not very innovative compared to SC/BW at all. And most of the updates/changes in game design have not been positive ones over the previous iterations. Economy, unit design, the damage/armor system... all of those things have degraded in the transition of SC1>SC2, and have caused endless problems that still have not been solved after so many years... I kinda agree with you in a way, but I also find this a bit clumsy and off topic here, because this is not about how to make the best RTS for mostly everyone from scratch, based on what we have learnt from so many different games (of many different genre also). But this is about what to expect from the next and last extension of a game we almost all -lets be frank- quite love already (otherwise we would not lose so much time testing, arguing, thinking about it, except for sadists maybe). Indeed, this does not mean we would not love even more a very new game designed from scratch without the inherent flaws of current (/past) RTSs, and for this you are pointing a very good starting points. With this in mind, I find what TLO and some other described and defend to be part of the core design of SCII and what defines this precise game (it is not just any RTS, it is this one). Thus removing of changing to much of the aims of the game would change the idea of the game itself (not sure if this last part is clear enough). | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On October 07 2015 00:39 AbouSV wrote: With this in mind, I find what TLO and some other described and defend to be part of the core design of SCII and what defines this precise game (it is not just any RTS, it is this one). Thus removing of changing to much of the aims of the game would change the idea of the game itself (not sure if this last part is clear enough). That is where things get very confusing IMO. Because with SC2, it is more complicated than just "changing too much changes the idea of the game itself". With SC2, you have not only fans of the SC2 game, but many of us are also SC/BW fans as well. Part of the problem is SC2 developers changed many aspects of SC1 that the general public was actually happy with. Adding macro mechanics was one of the things added in SC2 that was NOT in SC1. And I would argue that the whole idea since inception has been a poor one - simply because controls were improved in SC2 and BW required more clicks, so they made something to use up more clicks... That is poor game design! Taking that in to consideration, here is the thing I have to say in response to the paragraph I quoted... In my opinion (and many others) these mechanics never belonged in StarCraft from the start, and they directly changed the idea of the game itself, much as you described in your quote. If the idea and intent behind the mechanic is not for the best of the game, but rather to simply "make the controls harder", why upgrade the controls in the first place? Why take half-measures? Half-measures = nobody wins and the design is sub-par. I believe SC2 should have been the place where innovative mechanics were added. I still do think Blizzard should be the ones innovating. SC2 does not even have a good reputation anymore... And for good reason. Blizzard don't have the best track record for vanilla games at release, but they are a reputation for improving their games steadily with expansions and patches until they are in a better state. Even D3. The D3 team was wiling to do MAJOR CHANGES to the design of the game, even drastic changes such as removing the AH. With as horrible of a release as it had, is in much, much better shape now days. More of my friends have been playing D3 in this recent patch than have played at vanilla D3 release. That is the type of treatment SC2 has needed for years, but the game has not been given the attention it deserves from the developers... Rather than these macro mechanics, if we need something to "require players attention" and "require more clicks" then by all means add something that does that, but make the mechanics add positive substance to the game. From a strategic POV, these mechanics are crap. And regarding TLO's defense of these mechanics... To be honest I did not see very much at all defending the mechanics themselves - their functionality. He defended that they were another place to spend attention, and he defended that some people may build their playstyles around them. But not the actual mechanics themselves. This does not send me a message that says these mechanics should stay in the game, this sends me a message that says players need elsewhere to spend their attention and Blizzard should give us an ideal mechanic in that place, rather than this garbage. Final note - my prior post wasn't really about starting points for other games. Sad as it sounds, SC2 is all that is really left of the true RTS genre. And it is a damn shame that the game is being treated like this... Improvement and innovation should be here if it is going to be anywhere. It's been 5 years... and it is still arguable if SC2 is truly a better game than it was at release... | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On October 06 2015 02:11 Spyridon wrote: I find TLO's post very... idealistic. It speaks as if macro, micro, and mechanics are all equivalent skills. But in reality, throughout SC2's lifespan, these 3 things were not on equal footing. Macro and mechanics meant far, far more than micro. I do agree that unit compositions too mean too much, hard counters counter TOO hard. And I agree that it is a good thing that players have to choose where to spend their attention. But I have one major disagreement: I disagree with the conclusion that macro mechanics are the answer. Mechanics such as this should not be what separates "good" macro from "bad" macro. There should be more strategy involved, and making functions take "more clicks" should not be where players spend their attention. In my opinion, RTS's are stuck in the 90's. They are using outdated game design, and because SC2 is so well established as a tournament game, they are scared to change that. In game design, newer iterations should make controls easier, not harder. If you want to do something and it takes 5 clicks, in newer iterations of the game it should NOT take more than 5 clicks, and ideally it should take less. You see this in every genre of game, even the top tournament games/genres. Yes, that will free up clicks. Yes, players will have more "attention" to spend other places. So what should we do then? We should add some new mechanics that contribute to the game strategically! That has been my issue with macro mechanics all along. They are not well designed mechanics! More mechanics in the game are good, but they should be sufficiently rewarding, they should contribute strategically, they should be something that both players want to pay attention to & exploit to their advantage. They should encourage player vs player interaction. These current mechanics do very few, if any of these things... Controls, they should be improved. That is evolution and innovation in game design. And with the extra attention/APM offered, more mechanics that substantially affect the gameplay should be added. Not poorly designed mechanics such as spawn larvae that are a requirement more than an asset. The positives TLO mentioned that the macro mechanics have... Many other game mechanics can offer those same assets, and contribute much more to gameplay, than just making players have to spend their "attention and clicks" there. It should be more than that!! These mechanics don't offer any interesting play/counterplays. Even in TLO's explanation, they are simply just "another place to spend your attention". I honestly believe RTS's popularity is dying out, not because of MOBA's, but because the game design has stagnated. Because of this, I do not see any new RTS's gaining any real popularity until one of them shakes up the genre and breaks the mold. As everyone here knows, a well designed RTS can be amazing. But overall, SC2 is not very innovative compared to SC/BW at all. And most of the updates/changes in game design have not been positive ones over the previous iterations. Economy, unit design, the damage/armor system... all of those things have degraded in the transition of SC1>SC2, and have caused endless problems that still have not been solved after so many years... Agree completely I think this is truth and the proper answer to what can be disagreed about TLO's post. I think TLO wrote this in the context of where SC2 has a chance to go from the spot it is in : they will not backpedal on all the mistakes, it feels as if the company is simply unable to do such a thing. But from a RTS player perspective looking objectively at how to improve Starcraft 2 or understand its flaws as a RTS game, I feel this answer is spot on. | ||
|
TwiggyWan
France328 Posts
I love that liquid players reach to the community like that and would like to see you write again there! However, I believe that if both players are able to focus mostly on the micro management of their units, we'll end up with less interesting posturing of units. Both players will have their guard up constantly which, in the end, due to defender's advantage, will discourage, not encourage engagements This is my favorite part. What you say's so true there, and I think that's the part of the game that could be improved in a distant future. Giving more options to fight, may it be with units or maps would be a very good thing IMO. That's what SupCom FA does, and does very well, and IIRC you played it TLO. Spyridon you're also right, and i think you should give Forged Alliance a go, just to test if the game design of this game is better, according to your opinion/taste. You could like it or learn new things about RTS. | ||
|
VolTrdr
United States1 Post
| ||
|
Footler
United States560 Posts
| ||
|
Boneyard0216
Canada32 Posts
| ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
As far as how well designed the current ones are? Changes are more than welcome. | ||
|
iiGreetings
Canada563 Posts
| ||
|
Kitai
United States862 Posts
| ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On October 07 2015 01:53 Spyridon wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 07 2015 00:39 AbouSV wrote: With this in mind, I find what TLO and some other described and defend to be part of the core design of SCII and what defines this precise game (it is not just any RTS, it is this one). Thus removing of changing to much of the aims of the game would change the idea of the game itself (not sure if this last part is clear enough). That is where things get very confusing IMO. Because with SC2, it is more complicated than just "changing too much changes the idea of the game itself". With SC2, you have not only fans of the SC2 game, but many of us are also SC/BW fans as well. Part of the problem is SC2 developers changed many aspects of SC1 that the general public was actually happy with. Adding macro mechanics was one of the things added in SC2 that was NOT in SC1. And I would argue that the whole idea since inception has been a poor one - simply because controls were improved in SC2 and BW required more clicks, so they made something to use up more clicks... That is poor game design! Taking that in to consideration, here is the thing I have to say in response to the paragraph I quoted... In my opinion (and many others) these mechanics never belonged in StarCraft from the start, and they directly changed the idea of the game itself, much as you described in your quote. If the idea and intent behind the mechanic is not for the best of the game, but rather to simply "make the controls harder", why upgrade the controls in the first place? Why take half-measures? Half-measures = nobody wins and the design is sub-par. I believe SC2 should have been the place where innovative mechanics were added. I still do think Blizzard should be the ones innovating. SC2 does not even have a good reputation anymore... And for good reason. Blizzard don't have the best track record for vanilla games at release, but they are a reputation for improving their games steadily with expansions and patches until they are in a better state. Even D3. The D3 team was wiling to do MAJOR CHANGES to the design of the game, even drastic changes such as removing the AH. With as horrible of a release as it had, is in much, much better shape now days. More of my friends have been playing D3 in this recent patch than have played at vanilla D3 release. That is the type of treatment SC2 has needed for years, but the game has not been given the attention it deserves from the developers... Rather than these macro mechanics, if we need something to "require players attention" and "require more clicks" then by all means add something that does that, but make the mechanics add positive substance to the game. From a strategic POV, these mechanics are crap. And regarding TLO's defense of these mechanics... To be honest I did not see very much at all defending the mechanics themselves - their functionality. He defended that they were another place to spend attention, and he defended that some people may build their playstyles around them. But not the actual mechanics themselves. This does not send me a message that says these mechanics should stay in the game, this sends me a message that says players need elsewhere to spend their attention and Blizzard should give us an ideal mechanic in that place, rather than this garbage. Final note - my prior post wasn't really about starting points for other games. Sad as it sounds, SC2 is all that is really left of the true RTS genre. And it is a damn shame that the game is being treated like this... Improvement and innovation should be here if it is going to be anywhere. It's been 5 years... and it is still arguable if SC2 is truly a better game than it was at release... I get your point, indeed, and it hard to argue against because I mostly agree. let's take the comparison with D3 for instance. Sure the removal of the AH (and loot 2.0) changed a lot about the game, but I think that a comparable change to what you ask about SCII (and hopefully SCIII) would be more ingame oriented such as you can un-select your hero (DotA 1, are you around?) to check enemies affixes or others, or you can move your camera around; Things that would change the ingame play from its core, not the context in which you play the game. This is quite subtle, hence most likely arguable too. And so, the big changes about like the context of D3 (to keep the same example, because I find it to be a good one about Blizz's game enhancement) that they are willing/trying to do in SCII, would be more like the archon mode and the automated tournaments (and the ally commander?), and a possible rework of the ladder and matchmaking or different version of unrank maybe. Also, the biggest error, in my opinion, is to hold the choices made at the creation of SCII responsible for what you (general 'you') did not get in a real BW2. Sure this is StarCraft, but this defines more the universe in which you play, than the gameplay itself. SCII is as different from SC1 (BW or not), as W3 was from W2. But that's not what make it a bad/worse game. In another words, they used a existing excellent universe to create a new game. For the transition BW-SCII, I prefer the choice of having a new game, with different and new flaws, that then evolve from it, than a other upgrade of a existing one. This is also a reason why so many people keep playing a lot BW. It is just a other, different game. Unfortunately for them, not a state-of-the-art one, but still a excellent RTS. To conclude, I think we agree on the idea anyway (everything you explained that I did not mention), but just differ about how it should be(/have been) applied. I love SCII, not only for the game itself, but also for everything and everyone that come with it. And I, as many other people, would be just a pleased with another, different, new, (better?) RTS, defining some new mechanics that players would hasten to bend and find exploitable flaws to create so many amazing games as we have see in the past several years, and maybe even more [pleased], who knows? (Edit: Badly placed spoiler tag.) | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
Good Job TLO totally agree with you. Multitasking should be a HUGE part of SC2. not just some micro wars lol | ||
|
Meatex
Australia285 Posts
In the case of SC2 it might be something major like do I go bio or mech on this map or something small like do I send the first overlord vertical or horizontal? TLO makes a strong point that choosing where to spend your attention is an interesting tactical decision and can be part of your play style:- though I agree that currently its always a better choice to prioritize macro over micro but I think LotV is bring it closer to parity. Just imagine two pro players facing off - one the macro king the other micro god. The micro player has a much smaller army but perfect use of abilities and micro units back he is able to defeat the larger army and push forward but then another swarm approaches him and he is only able to reinforce with a few units as he was focusing totally on micro. You may have seen slivers of this kind of game before but I think that is the ideal aim. If you remove or over simplify the macro mechanics added into the game then you no longer have that element of where you spend your time as you can spend all your time watching your army. There are plenty of RTSs that cater to this style of gameplay and personally I find SC2 the MOST REWARDING WHEN i'm nailing all my injects while defending/scouting/harassing etc The game won't be better off or even worse off with major changes to MM - it will just become a different kind of RTS that I feel will lack what made SC2 unique, what made me come from FPS games when no other RTS had managed to grab me | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
Sure, you would get smurfing. But you already get smurfing, and removing macro mechanics would reduce the effective skill gap of a smurf. Not to mention that you could lock out the newbie ladder to anyone with platinum/diamond 'hardcore ladder' MMR or above. Personally I would so much rather play in that ladder right now, and then take on the extra challenge of doing it all again harder and faster with macro mechanics in place, as and when I felt ready. The alternative - what we have right now - is that I just don't play. It used to be confusing, (and now that I know better, boring and frustrating), that any remotely fun activities - scouting, harassing, controlling units, you know, activities that attracted me to the game in the first place - invariably cost me more than they benefit me because I'm not injecting my hatcheries on time. Yes, I know that is because I am shit at the game, and that if I got better it wouldn't be like that. But I'm not going to get better because I'm not going to play because it's boring and frustrating. | ||
|
Madars
Latvia166 Posts
On October 03 2015 23:09 Liquid`TLO wrote: If the game mechanics are too easy, there will less space for innovation and amazing come backs. There will always be enough space for Innovation. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On October 07 2015 17:37 AbouSV wrote: I get your point, indeed, and it hard to argue against because I mostly agree. let's take the comparison with D3 for instance. Sure the removal of the AH (and loot 2.0) changed a lot about the game, but I think that a comparable change to what you ask about SCII (and hopefully SCIII) would be more ingame oriented such as you can un-select your hero (DotA 1, are you around?) to check enemies affixes or others, or you can move your camera around; Things that would change the ingame play from its core, not the context in which you play the game. This is quite subtle, hence most likely arguable too. And so, the big changes about like the context of D3 (to keep the same example, because I find it to be a good one about Blizz's game enhancement) that they are willing/trying to do in SCII, would be more like the archon mode and the automated tournaments (and the ally commander?), and a possible rework of the ladder and matchmaking or different version of unrank maybe. Also, the biggest error, in my opinion, is to hold the choices made at the creation of SCII responsible for what you (general 'you') did not get in a real BW2. Sure this is StarCraft, but this defines more the universe in which you play, than the gameplay itself. SCII is as different from SC1 (BW or not), as W3 was from W2. But that's not what make it a bad/worse game. In another words, they used a existing excellent universe to create a new game. For the transition BW-SCII, I prefer the choice of having a new game, with different and new flaws, that then evolve from it, than a other upgrade of a existing one. This is also a reason why so many people keep playing a lot BW. It is just a other, different game. Unfortunately for them, not a state-of-the-art one, but still a excellent RTS. To conclude, I think we agree on the idea anyway (everything you explained that I did not mention), but just differ about how it should be(/have been) applied. I love SCII, not only for the game itself, but also for everything and everyone that come with it. And I, as many other people, would be just a pleased with another, different, new, (better?) RTS, defining some new mechanics that players would hasten to bend and find exploitable flaws to create so many amazing games as we have see in the past several years, and maybe even more [pleased], who knows? (Edit: Badly placed spoiler tag.) Well I mostly agree. But about the BW>SC2 transition, compared to W2-W3... I am glad you brought that up. Because I think that is a good example of them going all out with game design differing from W2. You can clearly tell that W3 is not at all like its predecessor. I will be honest too, the first iteration of W3 I did not think was so great. It was basically about massing any one specific unit. As a great example though, Frozen Throne completely changed the unit design based around this and made it so massing was not the best route anymore. This turned it from a game with major problems into a viable, and very popular (at the time) RTS. I can completely understand if people were upset with the change, but that game was clearly intended to be far off from its predecessor. BW>SC2, was different. If you look at SC2 it has upgraded graphics, but it does not really look like a different game. It "feels" different, the balance is completely different, unit design, economy, etc. But from a viewer, and even a player, it is not "clearly intended to be far off from its predecessor" like WC3 was. Actually if your a SC player moving to SC2, functionality-wise it just feels like improved controls in some areas (control groups buildings etc) but the biggest difference in actually playing your race is that you will need to take advantage of the new macro mechanics. Everything else is similar. And this is where they mess up from a game design perspective, because the macro mechanics were made BECAUSE of the improved controls. Why improve the controls at all if your just going to INTENTIONALLY try to make things more difficult in exchange? Conflict of interests. On your comparison to D3, I disagree that archon and automated tournaments are similar to the changes in D3. Those are different ways to play the game with your friends, but the core game itself is unchanged. The core problems in the games design have not been fixed. Compared to D3, the core of D3 is completely changed. Unit balance, class balance, economy, drops, equipment stats, basically every single area of the game has been without a doubt improved. They even added a completely new mode that was intended to be used for "endgame" - not a side-mode like Archon (which is just a multiplayer version of the same core game) but an actual improvement on how you play the core D3 game after completing the campaign. One thing they promised before release that never came to fruition is a full PvP system, but aside from that the entire game has been worked on. Which is more than you could say for SC2. To fans of the Diablo series, in the state the game is finally in now, I would be able to recommend D3 to a player of the series. I would let them know its not quite as good as D2 in the skill system area, and theres no real PvP. But aside from that? The actual gameplay as you play it still really does feel like Diablo at its core. When it comes to SC2... even if they were big fans of BW, I honestly do not think SC2 is a good recommendation. Too many half-measures. SC2 looks and controls similar to BW, but as I play it does not feel like StarCraft at its core. Feels more like a typical RTS with SC's name branded on it. Damage system, how counters work, turtling, the strategy involved, the influence of build orders, unit design, macro mechanics, economy... all of these things "feel" different, and (in my opinion) feel like degraded versions of StarCraft. Even WC3 improved how damage and counters work from Vanilla > Frozen Throne ~15 years ago. Yet these days the same company is not willing to do the same for SC2, even though it has been needed just as badly. And unlike WC3, the game design of SC2 is not a drastically different direction akin to WC2>WC3. From the SC2 game design it is apparent the intent of their design was to make a game LIKE StarCraft 1, and these changes they made to units, macro mechanics, economy? These changes were done in a genuine effort to improve SC2 relative to SC1. Problem is as it turns out these things have not improved the gameplay. But they have stuck to their guns despite all the issues, something Blizzard would not do 15 years ago (with WC3 as proof)... | ||
| ||
