EPT[SC2B] Micro Revisited - Page 4
| Forum Index > News |
|
Veijyn
4 Posts
| ||
|
Love.Zelduck
United States170 Posts
On March 13 2010 16:08 madsweepslol wrote: When were many of the micro tricks that define today's quality StarCraft play discovered? When did we first see rine splitting around lurkers or muta micro? Not for years after BW was released. So I say to you: it's too early to tell. I didn't read past page 1 of the replies. I'd just like to point out that the transition from SSBM->Brawl for the smash community involved a similar worry. SSBM's metagame developed around a clunky game engine that was discovered to have interesting properties that led to all competitive players learning basic "glitches" in order to properly maneuver their character. Brawl's modern engine simplified and streamlined a lot of the accidental "design flaws" from the previous game, and while there was a trial period where plenty of people were saying we should wait and see, the game really didn't change much from initial understandings. Having already undergone the discovery process with a previous game, the diehard players ripped through the modern dumbed down remake and "figured out" the game in a relatively short time. (Personal opinion: I gave brawl a lot of time, but it really seems to me to be inferior to melee, not that I bother to play either anymore). A similar thing can be said of SC2. It's basically impossible for any of us to discover amazing micro tricks that blizzard didn't intend on putting there as it's a modern game with all of the technological and software engineering advances we've made. Likewise the community is well developed and while SC2 has lots of new toys to deal with, the game will be sorted out much faster than bw was. (Although every new expansion will screw with you when you feel you've got everything figured out, which should be fun). That being said, I'm quite in love with SC2, and I want nothing less than for there to be a worldwide competitive scene that is strong and loyal. It's an amazing game already, and I'm optimistic as to where it's headed. One other thing, it really is too early to tell. Honestly, even the top players are nowhere near bw level of proficiency. There's all kinds of bad decisions and (in some cases) plain laziness when it comes to figuring out "what is the best option". It reminds me of when a lot of top American Odyssey Block Constructed magictg players said the format was just a coin flip when objective analysis of who was actually winning and how often and with what kind of decks just didn't agree with their complaints. Micro is a big issue. Big concern is wholly justified. We need to make sure that we investigate thoroughly before we put on our "the sky is falling" t-shirts. To everyone in the beta, PLAY YOUR ASS OFF. + Show Spoiler + P.S. Yes, I'm in the beta, and yes, I'm bad at starcraft. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
|
Sasajoe
Bulgaria46 Posts
i am just disgusted of knowing mutas have range of 3 & how they r supposed to protect the expansion & in the meantime to avoid that imba HSM so much micro is required for the terran player to drop these 2 missiles ... in the meantime the zerg player has to literaly sweat blood in order to avoid those missiles . | ||
|
itsjms
United States1 Post
For example, you need 2 vespene geysers with 3 workers on each to equal one vespene geyser in the original SC. Early game this translates into a slow tech process and a less harassment orientated early game. Not to mention the fact that units cost more gas and minerals, yet come in slower than the original game. Most units also require more supply. Whats with that? | ||
|
madsweepslol
161 Posts
On March 16 2010 08:06 Love.Zelduck wrote: A similar thing can be said of SC2. It's basically impossible for any of us to discover amazing micro tricks that blizzard didn't intend on putting there as it's a modern game with all of the technological and software engineering advances we've made. Likewise the community is well developed and while SC2 has lots of new toys to deal with, the game will be sorted out much faster than bw was. (Although every new expansion will screw with you when you feel you've got everything figured out, which should be fun). I'm just going to quote Bane_, because he put into words my feelings about this better than I could: On March 13 2010 22:47 Bane_ wrote: I mean there's all this talk of dumbing the ai back down again so that we have to grapple and fight with horrible pathing and so on to demonstrate who has the most awesome mechanics, but why can't we grapple and fight with the current ai which is trying to be too smart? It won't always move and attack in the way we want it to so surely correcting that behaviour will end up just as important at the top levels of play? | ||
|
Perseverance
Japan2800 Posts
I personally think there is a ton of micro opportunity in this game though, especially with all the support units there are. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On March 13 2010 16:16 LaughingTulkas wrote: I think it's funny that less than a year ago, the consensus was that macro was going to suck in sc2/be too easy and that the game was going to become a complete micro game like wc3, and that now that teh beta is actually out, we find that macro is actually harder and more interesting that would have been thought possible with MBS and automine, and that it's the micro side of the game that is struggling. Hopefully we can see some cool stuff from the community and possibly blizzard if necessary. Its so, so deliciously ironic. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
The game I worked on, Smash Bros., is a fighting game, but keeping in mind such reasoning, I set out to make sure the game did not over-emphasize the notions of victory and defeat. I won't go into too much detail, but the game was built so that if a player is strong in combat, just doing the same thing over and over again won't guarantee they'll always win over their opponents. There is a mechanism of accidents occurring, balanced so that the game's progress and results falter easily. Whether you win or lose, you enjoy a hearty laugh, and move on to the next round. I think this makes quite a good game. It’s not like I think that serious competition is not interesting. It’s good to have equals fighting intensely. Yet, I understand quite well the feelings of children who just enjoy hitting a motionless opponent in things like a training mode. I don't watch sports much and I don't find them particularly exciting. Whichever player or team wins, I always end up thinking "well done, everyone!" I'm not really cheering for or supporting any one team. If there was something like the World Cup going on, I'd be inclined to cheer for Japan and would be excited, but if the opponent was putting his heart into it, I'd feel that both were the same. When Japan lost in the '98 World Cup, the TV announcers were saying things like "Japan was defeated!" and "Japan was weak!" If you look more closely, you find many factors that could have contributed to the result. But I personally wondered, "doesn't this just mean that the other team fought well?" That's why I designed Smash Bros., which I was working on at the time, with the intent that the loser will applaud the winner. In other words, at least you don't have the devs actively neutering your chances of playing competitively (lol tripping) | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
| ||
|
Osmosis
United States2 Posts
This way casual players can play at their own pace in matches which pairs them against players in their skill groups. This will allow Blizzard to direct their attention to the real starcraft fans and not lose sight of their needs (which imo trumps the casual player's needs tenfold). Bring back the same level of difficulty as SC1. And do justice to starcraft. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On March 16 2010 08:06 Love.Zelduck wrote: One other thing, it really is too early to tell. Honestly, even the top players are nowhere near bw level of proficiency. There's all kinds of bad decisions and (in some cases) plain laziness when it comes to figuring out "what is the best option". It reminds me of when a lot of top American Odyssey Block Constructed magictg players said the format was just a coin flip when objective analysis of who was actually winning and how often and with what kind of decks just didn't agree with their complaints. Haha. How many people actually understand that example really? ;D At times the sc2 arguments remind me of arguments about "results based" testing. I wish everyone played magic; it would make arguing about design much easier. | ||
|
The_Voidless
United States184 Posts
| ||
|
MagicARide
Canada83 Posts
but i still think SC2 is kinda unbalanced and bit ez, plus they removed all my favorite units T___T however there's still a while till the actual game comes out... hopefully the game will be improved by that time | ||
| ||
