EPTI wouldn't be shocked if the first expansion comes with several splash damage units and casters. Wings of Liberty coming with mostly balanced even-keel units, and then the expansion brings with it some over-powered units that bring boom/bust micro into the play.
[SC2B] Under the Microscope - Page 8
| Forum Index > News |
|
WhistlingMtn
United States190 Posts
I wouldn't be shocked if the first expansion comes with several splash damage units and casters. Wings of Liberty coming with mostly balanced even-keel units, and then the expansion brings with it some over-powered units that bring boom/bust micro into the play. | ||
|
gREIFOCs
Argentina208 Posts
On July 11 2010 12:27 Slardarxt wrote: I couldn't agree more with this article, perfectly sound logical arguments, The only reasoning is: "It's different, therefore is bad". That's neither logical or sounding. Is just what old people say about the internet. The game is different, but you could argue that by having less single events that change the whole dynamic of the game, you encourage the win by the player that is more skillfull. If I can change the game with a storm, someone else can change it with a LUCKY storm. I prefer having more steamrolling games when the players are of different skill levels, than seeing the underdog going for gimmicks trying to get the skilled player off his game. Let the best win. And for that, the less singularities, the better. I won't account the spectator side of starcraft because the article talks about dynamics that a average spectator doesn't grasp. Also, I'm not stating my opinion, but another valid point of view. What i'm trying to say is: We are discussing taste. On July 11 2010 12:27 Slardarxt wrote:albeit we haven't given SC2 the benefit of the doubt or a chance to "develop" regardless of how truly lacking the game play is. I think the current state of the meta game is: Delirious. We are still in beta, playing a game that didn't even came out, and we are allready ranting on how we are doomed. Also, the developments in therms of gameplay come from the players. We are still too biased from SC1 when we look SC2 and treat it too differently and complain that we can't treat it similarly. To those I say, try SC1 tactics, and you'll see that they actually work. You just where deluted with the new macro dynamics. Today we are playing starcraft at our base. That will change, when someone get's out of the base and change the dynamic of the game. | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
And why would you anyway? If you want to play BW, go play BW. But stop bashing unreleased game for not being as perfect as you'd like. Just give it time to evolve and stabilize, wait for expansions and the patches. | ||
|
palexhur
Colombia730 Posts
| ||
|
palanq
United States761 Posts
There are also the potential for a lot of significant unit interactions, but the most complex ones (e.g. between lurker/ling/defiler vs medic/marine/scivessel) come lategame so it will take a while for those compositions to be fully explored. HSM anyone? Ghosts vs templar? | ||
|
alexpnd
Canada1857 Posts
| ||
|
Brazen[six]
Canada203 Posts
| ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
| ||
|
No_eL
Chile1438 Posts
Something is lost, and i hope here or in dev blizzard hq someone had the answer to give us back the power of starcraft broodwar in this new stage. ps: i think that one of the best signs about this sc2 deep problem its the fact of having so many low count posting users defending the new game and so many old players having serious doubts about the game. | ||
|
No_eL
Chile1438 Posts
On July 12 2010 01:39 palexhur wrote: Well this article reminds me 5 years ago when AoC (Age of Empires:the Conquerors expansion) players (including me) said that some things in AoE3 just broke the original conception of its predecessor as an excellent RTS game, new players just rant out about giving the game more time, tactics over APM nerds, and blah blah blah, right now, AoE3 is just a game without community , tournies or fun, and AoC has its 2k players community (It is 9 years old) and some tournies with even USD10k price, so You, the new guys, those that dont listen, just read again and press Blizzard to give you the maximize experience, because right now , It is not comparing a 10 yrs old game vs a Beta game, It is 10 yrs of experience gained by everybody including the companies to put the best in a game that has the biggest RTS community in the world because of SC1, It is true, games evolve with players but sometimes you can nail things that block the evolution. Right now even though I am not a SC player from my spectator point of view as a RTS player, I get excited watching pro SC scene and get boring watching the top SC2 scene, so dont go into the battle BW vs SC2, go for the battle that makes a diference between a classic game and a good one. totally agree +1 | ||
|
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
That being said, some of these things just can't be helped. Blizzard can't be expected to keep certain archaic and clearly inferior game elements, just because it made the game more competitive in the long run. Making "improvements" in the areas that they did is the completely logical decision. Like I said though, I do agree with the OP, and it is my sincere hope that with patches and expansion units, Blizzard can bring more "unit potential" as well as more micro into SC2. | ||
|
Ursadon-n-Pals
United States928 Posts
I definitely agree with this article. BW is just as fun to watch as SC2 even without all the shiny graphics because the control dynamics were so amazing in BW. | ||
|
Jackal03
Brazil7469 Posts
| ||
|
pheus
Australia161 Posts
On July 11 2010 20:29 entropius wrote: Disclaimer: I'm nowhere near a top player. I think what's missing from SC2 is an element of uncertainty. In SC1 (especially against Protoss, but also against Terran) there's the constant danger of getting a pile of units obliterated in the blink of an eye by things like storm, spider mines, and reavers. A SC1 game was a constant dynamic between units that are fragile to splash damage but statistically superior (marines, zerglings, mutas, hydras) and the splash abilities that people use to try to kill them. Like the OP said, SC1 took a bunch of unbalanced things and made them balanced. SC1 was like a duel with swords -- one slipup and you get stabbed, and that's that. SC2, on the other hand, is like a boxing match -- you grind people down with brute force over time. There's nothing as scary as storm, mines, or defilers. You can look at the composition of two armies and figure out who's going to win. Sure, flanks and concaves and so on matter, but not as much -- if you have colossi and a Terran doesn't have vikings you're probably going to just roll over him. Perhaps this is just because I'm not as good a player at SC2 as I was at SC1 (very long ago), but in SC1 when playing PvZ I often teched templar first. Why? Because I knew I could rely on storm to provide both reliable defense and reliable offense, if I was on my toes. But now I hardly ever make templar -- sure, storm is still good, but it's not going to keep me alive against a zerg macro like SC1 storm would. How many Terran players have said "Oh, my opponent is amassing hydralisks, time to get Hunter-Seeker Missiles to blow them all up"? Not many. The few mass-damage AoE effects are just not strong enough to rely on. Instead, we get spells that let you a-move better: Infested Terrans, Auto-Turrets, Point Defense Drone, Guardian Shield. In many ways all of these are just ways to simulate having more guys than you really do. The "terrible damage" tricks just aren't able to keep up with the army composition/macro game; only another huge well-composed army will, and who wins comes down to concaves and flanking -- or just who has more dudes. It's strategic, but it's not as nailbiting. I think this is a really great first post... I totally agree that there's no excitement when you can be fairly sure of the outcome prior to a battle. I don't feel we can say that this is a certainty for sc2, but it is something I'm worried about | ||
|
stellarvector
United States32 Posts
And, if it does turn out to be a huge disappointment... well- we can always just go back to brood war! | ||
|
OHtRUe
United States283 Posts
SC2 is a dumbed down and garbage version of broodwar and there is NO argument against it. No it is not different its just plain easier and plain WORSE. Every single part of the game has disevolved Macro is easier, THERE IS ZERO MICRO THAT A MENTALLY DISABLED REDHEADED BABY COULDN'T DO, and people saying OH OH POSITIONING IS HARDER. No it fucking isnt, its because it's the only factor that influences battles. It's comparable to people in the CoD community saying oh theres more awareness needed, but that its not true because its the only thing there because there is zero gun skill. Pretty much Dustin Browder removed all of the units that focused on micro and that could drastically shift the game with a skilled players hands. He replaced these with absolutely GARBAGE units that do not create any micro battles. Examples of this is forcefield which creates micro for one player and then the other player just has to take it up the fucking ass as there is nothing he can do to win the micro battle. Then theres this hard counter system where you litterally again have to take it up the ass as there is no micro that could help you win that battle. And then theres marauders that are the epitome of this as again YOU CANNOT MICRO AGAINST THEM. So pretty much you have no micro that you can do if your in a down hill position to make it favor you. Pretty much unit compositions are the king and everything else that was based off of the skill of the player has been removed or nerfed heavily. Thats why this game will NEVER be as good as SC BW with the current design philosophy Blizzard is going for. Also this game is pretty much done evolving micro wise 2 MONTHS IN. And when people find these spectacular timings micro again will take the back seat.... To put in my words Blizzard created a C@C game instead of a Starcraft game..... | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
I am no prophet, therefore I won't say SC2 will fail or not. But what I know for sure is that the game will attract millions, therefore even if it is considered less good than BW it will become the most popular of the two; especially if a strong eSport community evolves from it. Once the community is here and money is envolved, the game will evolve. Then we will see and agree or disagree that this is a good game or not, it will be a different game than BW but I hope it will be just a difference of tastes. One's must be blind to not see this game will have a long life. eSport is not a matter of what game is the best, it is a matter of how popular it is, even WoW has a eSport community even if it is absolute garbage from a spectator point of view and VERY limited from the player point of view. Therefore, if I am correct and the game will be the major eSport RTS game of the next years. We must just hope it becomes better and better due to players and developers; being griefed by it not being BW will just make you angry... and well I don't see BW disapearing so if you like this one best stay on/watch it. | ||
|
Stuslegend
Canada168 Posts
its like for example, the arbiter in broodwar was a late game tech, took ages to produce and you have to research recall/stasis/and eventually the energy upgrade but in sc2, you can basically do all that within like 6 mins - ie, stasis = force field pylon warp = recall | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
Yes this x1000... and AOE3 has had years now | ||
|
Teddyman
Finland362 Posts
On July 12 2010 03:16 OHtRUe wrote: Teamliquid is pretty much becoming the CoD IW forums with all these people who will die with there game and if anyone who disagrees is instantanously wrong... SC2 is a dumbed down and garbage version of broodwar and there is NO argument against it. It seems you're contributing nicely to that change. | ||
| ||
