This video shows and explains carrier micro in BW and contrasts it with a lack of micro in SC2. I argue for implementing the BW carrier mechanics in HOTS beta.
On September 17 2012 06:15 thedeadhaji wrote: There's a bunch of differences between BW and SC2 Carrier micro details that you listed out, and I'm wondering in what order would you personally like to have "returned" to its former state?
Here are the ones I can recall:
1. Target switching in leash zone 2. Able to self select / target interceptors 3. Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving
Also, the movement pattern of the interceptors seem quite different between BW and SC2, which would affect the "death rate" and "dps rate" of interceptors I imagine.
Target switching in leash zone is the most important.
Being able to target individual interceptors is probably the lowest. That's really just meant to make carriers more difficult to use but it is kind of luck based and not the smoothest way to balance them. Enemies don't really want to do that either. A-move will always be the best method of killing interceptors (aside from possibly with abilities).
Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
All these mechanics sort of tie in to each other. A lot of times the continuous deployment of interceptors isn't used for long stretches, but rather for very short stretches, like in a single battle when the carriers want to pull really far back for a moment and then go right back in. If they don't have continuous deployment of interceptors, they get significantly punished for leaving battles even for a split second. So in such a case, it's basically the same as target switching but with a very short retreat between targets.
Related note: If there isn't continuous deployment, then you are significantly punishing the carrier user for leaving leash range. And when that wasn't a mistake, but rather a "tactical retreat", then the carrier starts to feel like a shitty unit again. If the carrier was too strong, I wouldn't want to see it balanced that way because it's just making it a frustrating unit.
if the carrier could be microed it would possibly be pretty good since it has suck a high dps. actually i wonder in the first play why blizard has not yet implemented that?
Awesome post, although I don't really follow SC2 at all I appreciate your effort to fight for these changes which might make the game more attractive. I don't see it coming given the directions the development has been taking so far but it's great that there's someone like you out there fighting
i wish i had something useful to contribute, but all i can do is compliment how cool of a job you've done through this video in show the difference between the powerful micro-bility of BW carriers vs current WoL carriers.
It definitely would be more fun for spectators to see more stargate play in protoss matchups, and i'm sure more protoss players would have more fun playing air-toss styles
On September 17 2012 05:28 AxiR wrote: I think Blizzard is hesitating to implement the "old" carrier because it would overlap a little bit with role of the tempest.
Tempest wasn't around in wol though so thats a poor excuess. Tempest might not be needed if the carrier gets its old feel back, and im ok with that.
Amazing, thanks for making this, and yes a hundred times over. Implementing BW Carrier mechanics in HoTS beta would spice of the game like you wouldn't believe. I will never forget those crazy-ass carrier micro moments.
Wow. Wow, wow, wow. This is so cool. Would LOVE to see this kind of micro in Starcraft II. I'm all for experimenting with this in the beta. Blizzard should really watch this video, Carriers will be so much fun to see in pro-games..!
Thanks for this awesome insight, Tyler. Liquid'NonY for president!
I think it's also very important to point out that these changes would not affect the lower leagues, as anything micro intensive really just doesn't exist down there (and if it's tried it's at the expense of macro).
This is very awesome, and I hope implemented in some way to SC2, but it isn't going to be the cure all to the carrier, even if balanced perfectly. A major difference between SC2 and BW in terms of the Carrier was the units dedicated to fight against them (vT in BW, and vZ in SC2, where the Carrier is used most). Corruptor vs Goliath. The corruptor is a fellow air unit, so the primary benefit of the move away carrier micro is lost, being able to abuse cliffs and terrain to attack the Goliath's without being hit back by outranging them, whereas Corruptors ignore this and can carry on moving. So even if the opportunity was there (no doubt it would help) corruptors would just be able to keep chasing, unlike Goliaths.
This isn't even talking about the problem of infestors
On September 17 2012 05:28 AxiR wrote: I think Blizzard is hesitating to implement the "old" carrier because it would overlap a little bit with role of the tempest.
Tempest wasn't around in wol though so thats a poor excuess. Tempest might not be needed if the carrier gets its old feel back, and im ok with that.
I actually agree with you... the carrier is a much cooler unit but blizzard might not want to scratch the tempest.. Then again they did actually remove the warhound recently so there might be hope!
I would love to see this in HotS. Seems like it would be really fun to play with and wont change how carriers are used right now if people choose to simply A - move.
This is great! Is there any thing like this that breaks down reaver micro? As SC2 is my first RTS I have heard about reavers and how they added so much to the dynamics of protoss, but honestly I have no idea how they where used in SC/BW.
There's a bunch of differences between BW and SC2 Carrier micro details that you listed out, and I'm wondering in what order would you personally like to have "returned" to its former state?
Here are the ones I can recall:
1. Target switching in leash zone 2. Able to self select / target interceptors 3. Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving
Also, the movement pattern of the interceptors seem quite different between BW and SC2, which would affect the "death rate" and "dps rate" of interceptors I imagine.
I actually had no idea about the keeping Interceptors outside trick haha. All this time I thought it was just using the leash range on target switching, and you get full/instant burst only when target switching quickly.
Awesome video for educational purposes alone, doubt anything will come of it in SC2 though.
On September 17 2012 06:15 thedeadhaji wrote: There's a bunch of differences between BW and SC2 Carrier micro details that you listed out, and I'm wondering in what order would you personally like to have "returned" to its former state?
Here are the ones I can recall:
1. Target switching in leash zone 2. Able to self select / target interceptors 3. Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving
Also, the movement pattern of the interceptors seem quite different between BW and SC2, which would affect the "death rate" and "dps rate" of interceptors I imagine.
Target switching in leash zone is the most important.
Being able to target individual interceptors is probably the lowest. That's really just meant to make carriers more difficult to use but it is kind of luck based and not the smoothest way to balance them. Enemies don't really want to do that either. A-move will always be the best method of killing interceptors (aside from possibly with abilities).
Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
All these mechanics sort of tie in to each other. A lot of times the continuous deployment of interceptors isn't used for long stretches, but rather for very short stretches, like in a single battle when the carriers want to pull really far back for a moment and then go right back in. If they don't have continuous deployment of interceptors, they get significantly punished for leaving battles even for a split second. So in such a case, it's basically the same as target switching but with a very short retreat between targets.
Related note: If there isn't continuous deployment, then you are significantly punishing the carrier user for leaving leash range. And when that wasn't a mistake, but rather a "tactical retreat", then the carrier starts to feel like a shitty unit again. If the carrier was too strong, I wouldn't want to see it balanced that way because it's just making it a frustrating unit.
It's funny because just yesterday I was playing some BW with friends and I just went carriers and had so much fun microing them around, in sc2 it's just not possible to micro carrier the same way. They're just big chunk of burst damage and there is no terrain abuse or cool micro to do with them
If you weren't already respected and loved, you would be now. This was one of the most quality posts I've ever seen. So good!
I for one, have always loved the carrier, and I was one of those fans who back in BW "didn't understand the mechanics of carrier micro, but could tell the difference between good carrier micro and bad carrier micro," but now since you posted this, I'm so much more educated in my carrier fanboy-ism.
Thank you Tyler! Please listen to this man Blizzard, he knows what he's talking about.
These are the changes in star2 that made the game go stale for me. The new units all are so a clicky, the worst for me is the swarm host, its large and slow, has no synergy with the zerg army until late late game where everything is slow, and then there is no micro, it just spits out a ranged unit
I knew you could have the actual carrier outside it's attack range while the interceptors kept attacking but I didn't know about the stop/move command that kept all the interceptors out and instant deployment when you ordered the carriers to attack... although before I did see interceptors that were out alongside carriers when you stop/moved them but didn't think anything of it..
It goes to show how complex and great the carrier is in BW and would hope to see this in SC2!
This would go a long way to make, what is currently basically an A-move unit, into a unit that's actually interesting. I really wish Blizzard would consider implementing this.
If Blizzard would really change carrier mechanics based on this intel then i would be shocked, because that would mean blizzard haven't done thier elementary homework.
If there was ever a vid that blizzard needed to watch this is it! This sums up how to fix the carrier and add depth and excitement and a skill level between protoss that would make spectating so much more exciting. Please blizzard watch the vid and fix the carrier.
Nuances like these made Brood War what it is... I feel these kinds of skills are almost entirely missing from SC2...
Too me this isn't just about carrier micro, but about an approach to unit design.
Subtleties like this are both exciting and skillful. They don't affect lower level players, yet add complexity to the higher level. Complexity is a good thing. I don't know if Blizzard knows that... I'd be surprised if Blizzard even understands the importance of this kind of thing let alone implements it...
Very good job Nony, makes me want to go back and play BW, the units have just so much more depth, this should be spotlighted and hopefully some of these features get implemented, but I doubt it will happen.
Protoss definately needs a stronger alternative to the current army. Protoss air seems so weak. Carriers being viable in the later stages could definately give some alternatives to the way Protoss is being played. And buffing units by changing the way they can be microed is an exicting thing! It's sort of discovering a whole new use for an existing unit you thought was useless. Makes the game a lot more fun if existing units are changed a little in such a way that makes them stronger if used correctly. Gives a unit more depth. I just hope this change would make carriers viable again!
It's funny because it actually goes much deeper than this. Nony didn't even get to mentioning how goliath vs carrier works. If carriers are left in the open goliaths (which are a bit faster than carriers) can simply walk under them and kill them very quickly. For this reason carriers tend to be deployed in areas in which the terran can't maneuver there goliaths very well. Usually this means over mineral lines or from behind cliffs that are near key points of the map. In these locations the carriers can easily retreat if goliaths get to close and since often times few goliaths will be able to shoot at a time, the carriers will have significantly more dps. In order for the goliaths to combat this, they will often back off from the ridge a bit and shoot down the carriers interceptors rather than put themselves in an area in which they are at the carriers mercy near by the maps obstructions. This forces the carriers to move forward, which in turn leaves them vulnerable to the goliaths running under them and dispatching of them rapidly. However if the goliaths move too far back the carriers will just ignore them and continue kill whatever buildings/expansion they were attacking in the first place. This creates a really high level of skill micro dynamic between the players that is very interesting for an observer to watch.
I hope this video reaches the attention of Blizzard. I'm sick of hearing interview after interview about the carrier where they'll remark about how they "read as much" of the feedback as they can, yet when the Carrier is brought up the only argument they hear is that it's iconic. Which roof do we need to shout at them from?
Absolutely awesome video. I thought carriers could be improved with bw micro, but I didn´t even know half of it. The instant deploy with full 14 range just blew my mind.
We need to make Blizzard see this. We need to. This is not some random "buff carrier" plea. Tyler knows his shit. I can´t access Battlenet US forums though and Dustin Browder and David Kim opened threads in these, so they would notice them easier in the US forums.
The SC2 devs didn´t work on SC:BW. They (probably) don´t know what made carriers great. Give them a nudge, show them Tylers video.
On September 17 2012 07:42 Mataza wrote: Absolutely awesome video. I thought carriers could be improved with bw micro, but I didn´t even know half of it. The instant deploy with full 14 range just blew my mind.
We need to make Blizzard see this. We need to. This is not some random "buff carrier" plea. Tyler knows his shit. I can´t access Battlenet US forums though and Dustin Browder and David Kim opened threads in these, so they would notice them easier in the US forums.
The SC2 devs didn´t work on SC:BW. They (probably) don´t know what made carriers great. Give them a nudge, show them Tylers video.
To be fair, the SC1 developers probably didn't know what they were doing when they made the carriers' ai (or pretty much everything that makes BW great) like that. It just ended up being awesome.
This was an amazing video, thank you, I really hope blizzard takes note and implements some of these changes if not ALL of these changes to bring the carrier back into competitive play.
On September 17 2012 07:15 bgx wrote: If Blizzard would really change carrier mechanics based on this intel then i would be shocked, because that would mean blizzard haven't done thier elementary homework.
My question why doesn't Tyler replace David Kim? He loves the game and I feel could objectively balance the other races as well.
Great video made me excited though with the instant release of the interceptors you could potentially see some amazing fungal plays against interceptors.
The question is are they being stubborn, will they improve the mechanics of a unit that has been in SC2 since the beginning back to when the unit was actually used from BW and is half decent instead of the current version and admit they were wrong. I know Browder usually says "if you want BW, go play BW" notion in regards to the lurker and reaver, but this unit has actually been carried over from the previous game, they really have no excuse to make it good and improve the mechanics. What gets me is how David Kim and the design crew don't know about this already and how the unit actually worked in BW, it's kinda surprising.
Excellent video Tyler, I hope they see it. It's a perfect opportunity to test how the BW carrier would work in SC2 HotS, like you mentioned.
On September 17 2012 07:20 HawaiianPig wrote: Nuances like these made Brood War what it is... I feel these kinds of skills are almost entirely missing from SC2...
Too me this isn't just about carrier micro, but about an approach to unit design.
Subtleties like this are both exciting and skillful. They don't affect lower level players, yet add complexity to the higher level. Complexity is a good thing. I don't know if Blizzard knows that... I'd be surprised if Blizzard even understands the importance of this kind of thing let alone implements it...
One can hope though...
Exactly this, the unit design is more superficial in many ways in SC2
I feel like this is the best time for the pro gaming community, as a whole, to be heard and talk to Blizzard as much as possible when it comes to the design of sc2.
Since appearently you guys have a pro only forum in the hots battlenet forums (read it somewhere on TL), i think the full pro gaming community, each and every progamer in the beta, should be EXTREMELY vocal about this. Annoy the hell out of Browder and David Kim until they are convinced it is for the good to have amazing mechanics like these, and maybe, just maybe, stuff like reaver replacing the colossus (because let's face it, EVERYONE knows it would make a much better game), bw carriers, a proper unit to complement mech and make it the standard way to play terran.
This is the best moment to do it, and the fact that blizzard listened to Grubby's idea on the Oracle and to all the complaints on the Warhound means itis possible they will isten; there is so much more that could be done to make SC2 a better competitive game and a worthy successor of BW but Blizzard will take a long time to admit the mistakes they made during the design process.
edit: "I know Browder usually says "if you want BW, go play BW" notion in regards to the lurker and reaver" yeaaah but then you look at the swarm host, viper and widow mine, and really think that, for example, it might be possbile to change the colossus into something that has a glaring mobility weakness, has great synergy with a warp prism, is not a unit that's generally massed as a go to army composition, and is effective in both straight up fights and harassment, but only with great micro, if and only if the community, especially progamers, is vocal enough with them during the beta.
would be nice to have these mechanics back, because its really hard to keep in range of 8 when you want to switch a target and keeping all the interceptors out. But i kinda like the giant leash zone you have in sc2, which might not be sustainable with those changes making carrier micro easy. (easy for something that needs almost full attention that is) But it is interesting that voidrays and carriers in sc2 get so much better if you attack single targets. If i engage Broodlords with carriers i basically assign 1 carrier to one broodlord/infestor and select them again to shift a movement command in leash range. Then you can hunt the targets to death and repeat it. (going to range 8 is risky though, but the mothership is perfect at diverting attention in addition to a few hts) Voidrays are the same if you want to charge on the opponent, you have to split them up first, so they gain their charge. It increases the damage output of the opponent at the start, but once charge is reached damages goes wild and turns the tide of battle. But hallucination (makes it easy to keep the charge) or building gateways with the prism works really good for precharging. Still BW mechanic for carriers was much more fun to use and this unleash of the interceptors looked really impressive (way better then they coming out all in line and if you know what you are doing you can fungal them all at once). I don't mind the sc2 version since i am perfectly fine with it (well i lack the 500 apm to kite corruptors perfectly), but the bw version would be way more entertaining for the viewers.
On September 17 2012 08:16 Teoita wrote: Excellent post.
I feel like this is the best time for the pro gaming community, as a whole, to be heard and talk to Blizzard as much as possible when it comes to the design of sc2.
Since appearently you guys have a pro only forum in the hots battlenet forums (read it somewhere on TL), i think the full pro gaming community, each and every progamer in the beta, should be EXTREMELY vocal about this. Annoy the hell out of Browder and David Kim until they are convinced it is for the good to have amazing mechanics like these, and maybe, just maybe, stuff like reaver replacing the colossus (because let's face it, EVERYONE knows it would make a much better game), bw carriers, a proper unit to complement mech and make it the standard way to play terran.
This is the best moment to do it, and the fact that blizzard listened to Grubby's idea on the Oracle and to all the complaints on the Warhound means itis possible they will isten; there is so much more that could be done to make SC2 a better competitive game and a worthy successor of BW but Blizzard will take a long time to admit the mistakes they made during the design process.
edit: "I know Browder usually says "if you want BW, go play BW" notion in regards to the lurker and reaver" yeaaah but then you look at the swarm host, viper and widow mine, and really think that, for example, it might be possbile to change the colossus into something that has a glaring mobility weakness, has great synergy with a warp prism, is not a unit that's generally massed as a go to army composition, and is effective in both straight up fights and harassment, but only with great micro, if and only if the community, especially progamers, is vocal enough with them during the beta.
If that is true, then we should also urge as many HotS beta testing pros s as possible to see this video and bring it forth to Blizzard. I didn´t know there was a Beta subforum for professionals.
By removing the Warhound and reintroducing the carrier, Blizz devs have for the first time admitted to being wrong. If this is only going to happen in the HotS Beta, we should use this opportunity wisely. And spam this video to them.
On September 17 2012 06:15 thedeadhaji wrote: There's a bunch of differences between BW and SC2 Carrier micro details that you listed out, and I'm wondering in what order would you personally like to have "returned" to its former state?
Here are the ones I can recall:
1. Target switching in leash zone 2. Able to self select / target interceptors 3. Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving
Also, the movement pattern of the interceptors seem quite different between BW and SC2, which would affect the "death rate" and "dps rate" of interceptors I imagine.
Target switching in leash zone is the most important.
Being able to target individual interceptors is probably the lowest. That's really just meant to make carriers more difficult to use but it is kind of luck based and not the smoothest way to balance them. Enemies don't really want to do that either. A-move will always be the best method of killing interceptors (aside from possibly with abilities).
Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
All these mechanics sort of tie in to each other. A lot of times the continuous deployment of interceptors isn't used for long stretches, but rather for very short stretches, like in a single battle when the carriers want to pull really far back for a moment and then go right back in. If they don't have continuous deployment of interceptors, they get significantly punished for leaving battles even for a split second. So in such a case, it's basically the same as target switching but with a very short retreat between targets.
Related note: If there isn't continuous deployment, then you are significantly punishing the carrier user for leaving leash range. And when that wasn't a mistake, but rather a "tactical retreat", then the carrier starts to feel like a shitty unit again. If the carrier was too strong, I wouldn't want to see it balanced that way because it's just making it a frustrating unit.
i really appreciate NoNy's followup response within the thread detailing specifically what changes, and in what priority, should be made.
HawaiianPig's
Subtleties like this are both exciting and skillful. They don't affect lower level players, yet add complexity to the higher level.
is so true, and definitely what the carrier needs to see more screen time at the professional level.
@NoNy I know from what you wrote above that the BW method would be most preferred because of the micro-intensity and focus required to maintain the deployed state on the interceptors, of course, but I'm curious though, NoNy, what other possible alternatives would be considered acceptable for achieving instant/continuous interceptor deployment while avoiding 'buggy behavior'? (an upgradable use-ability? graviton catapult upgrade changed to behave as permanent passive instant/continuous deployment? other?)
It's a really great video Tyler, really clear in explaining the differences between the unit control in the two games but you're also simultaneously making the case for the units removal. The flip side of what you're saying is that the unit is not as useful or as exciting without the Broodwar behavior, which is arguably true.
But if the BW behavior comes at the expense of readability (for example it's almost impossible to tell if the interceptors are deployed or not when you're keeping the carrier moving both for the player and the opponent) or simplicity (attempting to explain to a player watching/playing for the first time that switching targets moves the carrier back into deploy range, except when it doesn't by issuing a move command) then you're going to have a VERY difficult time convincing them that this is worthwhile.
They're much more likely to remove the unit and put in something where the player skill is more clear even if it's less mechanically interesting. Still I applaud your effort to be 100% clear when you say "reintroduce the BW behavior".
Whoever has an acc that can post in the Beta forum, please start spamming this video around en-masse. Don't be obnoxious about this obviously, but this is one of the reasons Carrier's aren't the units they were in BW and could do with being fixed. I want a way to show my 'sweet micro'!
If it's broken after trying it, obviously other things need done but it at least needs to be attempted
The best part of this sort of thing is it flies right above the heads of newbs for gameplay. It doesn't break the game for them. If you don't want to learn it, you just a-move and it works like normal. But it's an awesome tool for pro's to use. It's also very visual, thus better for spectating.
Great post. Gave a lot of insight into BW carrier micro that I wasn't actually aware of. I knew somewhat about the leash range thing, but had no clue about the stop-interceptor stuff. Great video.
So glad the carrier has returned. Hopefully it sees a bit of help as well.
On September 17 2012 08:04 itsjuspeter wrote: I know it isn't much but I created a thread on the bnet forums as well to hopefully catch blizzard's eye to what tyler made. Support is appreciated,
On September 17 2012 08:04 itsjuspeter wrote: I know it isn't much but I created a thread on the bnet forums as well to hopefully catch blizzard's eye to what tyler made. Support is appreciated,
Thanks for the video. Didn't know any of that stuff but definitely want to see the carrier become more used/useful. With no significant changes to the carrier so far, it seems like maybe the decision makers at blizzard don't even know about these original mechanics.
I feel like part of it is pride for their game? Most of the changes that people want for SC2 are 'make X unit like Y unit from Brood War and everything will be better!'
I agree, but.. I can't help but wonder if the SC2 designers (mostly not the same people who made brood war, mind you) are hesitant to throw away all their work in favour of BW units. It's a slap in the face, professionally.
On September 17 2012 09:37 MahE wrote: I feel like part of it is pride for their game? Most of the changes that people want for SC2 are 'make X unit like Y unit from Brood War and everything will be better!'
I agree, but.. I can't help but wonder if the SC2 designers (mostly not the same people who made brood war, mind you) are hesitant to throw away all their work in favour of BW units. It's a slap in the face, professionally.
They are already doing that, Swarm host = Lurker, viper = Defiler sure they are different and play slightly differently but they pretty much just recycled BW ideas.
Whoa, super cool to see the momentum that this idea is gathering.
It's not just about BW nostalgia; it's about doing what worked and what launched BW onto the big competitive stage, and in this case, probably the best thing to do is to bring back the carrier micro of old!
Interesting point made, but the real question is that what is fundamentally what made Carrier unusable? I think there are bigger issues with the carrier than with this micro mechanic.
On September 17 2012 09:37 MahE wrote: I feel like part of it is pride for their game? Most of the changes that people want for SC2 are 'make X unit like Y unit from Brood War and everything will be better!'
I agree, but.. I can't help but wonder if the SC2 designers (mostly not the same people who made brood war, mind you) are hesitant to throw away all their work in favour of BW units. It's a slap in the face, professionally.
I don't think so. From the beginning they should have been (I imagine they were) looking at what made BW successful as a competitive game. Learn from even the accidents and include it intentionally. However, for some reason, they never picked up on the importance of these skilled masteries that made it such an awesome game for competitors and spectators alike.
It doesn't really matter if a lot of things were developed from bugs. There's no reason to not have things like carrier micro, moving-shot, proper ground magic boxing, and maybe even ways to bug units over top of mineral lines/ buildings. There are so many of these cool, visual things that BW developed that SC2 seems to have completely left behind. Taking what was accidental and including it purposefully from the beginning would have been fine. Nothing to do with being slapped in the face professionally. And if we need to balance out the new micro (example) a muta cloud move shotting- just make it so 2-11 muta's will stack properly and 12 and more unstack so you can't have 30 muta's 1 shotting everything. Worry about including awesome skills before balance.
It's really frustrating seeing the BW pro's switch over without having these extremely visual ways of microing.
Thanks for this Tyler. I did a lot of carrier micro in BW not really realizing that I was doing it and now I know why it worked and the reasons for it.
And it explained exactly what I felt was missing in the SC2 carrier.
First of all, thanks Blizzard for bringing the carrier back to HotS. Now: get the old BW Carrier back, remove Colossus, add the Reaver and we should have a perfectly working Protoss race which isn't forced to play the same style in all Matchups whole time. Every PvZ looks the same and always comes to the point where either the protoss lands that supid vortex and can archon toilet him to death, OR it doesn't hit and the protoss loses. It's always the same... there's no difference in PvT either. Colossus -> He makes Vikings (so we only can techswitch to HTs because he already has anti-air - making air switches to carrier impossible) ... AND so on, give us our old AOE sidekick to the HT back and this game will be totally fine and always AMAZING to watch again.
On September 17 2012 09:57 a176 wrote: if toss can go mothership with regularity in sc2, they can definitely try for carrier switches
but i still wonder about corrupter counter
Leash range > corruptor range so it would make for some really epic micro battles.
They're going to have to do something about Fungal Growth...it already makes TvZ a pain in the butt. It's hard to handle 20+ corruptors shift-clicked onto your carriers when you can't move your junk at all.
On September 17 2012 09:37 MahE wrote: I feel like part of it is pride for their game? Most of the changes that people want for SC2 are 'make X unit like Y unit from Brood War and everything will be better!'
I agree, but.. I can't help but wonder if the SC2 designers (mostly not the same people who made brood war, mind you) are hesitant to throw away all their work in favour of BW units. It's a slap in the face, professionally.
I don't think so. From the beginning they should have been (I imagine they were) looking at what made BW successful as a competitive game. Learn from even the accidents and include it intentionally. However, for some reason, they never picked up on the importance of these skilled masteries that made it such an awesome game for competitors and spectators alike.
It doesn't really matter if a lot of things were developed from bugs. There's no reason to not have things like carrier micro, moving-shot, proper ground magic boxing, and maybe even ways to bug units over top of mineral lines/ buildings. There are so many of these cool, visual things that BW developed that SC2 seems to have completely left behind. Taking what was accidental and including it purposefully from the beginning would have been fine. Nothing to do with being slapped in the face professionally. And if we need to balance out the new micro (example) a muta cloud move shotting- just make it so 2-11 muta's will stack properly and 12 and more unstack so you can't have 30 muta's 1 shotting everything. Worry about including awesome skills before balance.
It's really frustrating seeing the BW pro's switch over without having these extremely visual ways of microing.
I'm fairly certain there are quotes of Blizzard explaining that they feel micro tricks are unintuitive to the viewer and therefore a negative factor for esports. I think their philosophy is to keep the game simple but with much depth. I don't agree with this view but I think it is important to understand their vision in order to persuade them.
On September 17 2012 09:37 MahE wrote: I feel like part of it is pride for their game? Most of the changes that people want for SC2 are 'make X unit like Y unit from Brood War and everything will be better!'
I agree, but.. I can't help but wonder if the SC2 designers (mostly not the same people who made brood war, mind you) are hesitant to throw away all their work in favour of BW units. It's a slap in the face, professionally.
I don't think so. From the beginning they should have been (I imagine they were) looking at what made BW successful as a competitive game. Learn from even the accidents and include it intentionally. However, for some reason, they never picked up on the importance of these skilled masteries that made it such an awesome game for competitors and spectators alike.
It doesn't really matter if a lot of things were developed from bugs. There's no reason to not have things like carrier micro, moving-shot, proper ground magic boxing, and maybe even ways to bug units over top of mineral lines/ buildings. There are so many of these cool, visual things that BW developed that SC2 seems to have completely left behind. Taking what was accidental and including it purposefully from the beginning would have been fine. Nothing to do with being slapped in the face professionally. And if we need to balance out the new micro (example) a muta cloud move shotting- just make it so 2-11 muta's will stack properly and 12 and more unstack so you can't have 30 muta's 1 shotting everything. Worry about including awesome skills before balance.
It's really frustrating seeing the BW pro's switch over without having these extremely visual ways of microing.
I'm fairly certain there are quotes of Blizzard explaining that they feel micro tricks are unintuitive to the viewer and therefore a negative factor for esports. I think their philosophy is to keep the game simple but with much depth. I don't agree with this view but I think it is important to understand their vision in order to persuade them.
I actually don't get what 'uninituitive' actually means except that it's a label that Blizzard uses for things they don't like. What makes something "unintuitive" really? If a set of actions creates certain unit behaviour, such as carrier micro, then that is what players can expect.
Thing is is, even if it is 'uninituitive' it doesn't even touch true newbs that don't even know how to a-move. (Yes they do exists.) They can happily right click around their massive fleet of carriers that took them 40 minutes to build from 1 stargate with 20 workers. It doesn't touch their world so 'unintuitive' doesn't even come into play. Beyond that, a competent and competitive player learns that a certain set of actions will create a desired unit response and they'll use it if they want to.
I understand this isn't your argument, but it's one that I've understood less and less.
On September 17 2012 09:37 MahE wrote: I feel like part of it is pride for their game? Most of the changes that people want for SC2 are 'make X unit like Y unit from Brood War and everything will be better!'
I agree, but.. I can't help but wonder if the SC2 designers (mostly not the same people who made brood war, mind you) are hesitant to throw away all their work in favour of BW units. It's a slap in the face, professionally.
I don't think so. From the beginning they should have been (I imagine they were) looking at what made BW successful as a competitive game. Learn from even the accidents and include it intentionally. However, for some reason, they never picked up on the importance of these skilled masteries that made it such an awesome game for competitors and spectators alike.
It doesn't really matter if a lot of things were developed from bugs. There's no reason to not have things like carrier micro, moving-shot, proper ground magic boxing, and maybe even ways to bug units over top of mineral lines/ buildings. There are so many of these cool, visual things that BW developed that SC2 seems to have completely left behind. Taking what was accidental and including it purposefully from the beginning would have been fine. Nothing to do with being slapped in the face professionally. And if we need to balance out the new micro (example) a muta cloud move shotting- just make it so 2-11 muta's will stack properly and 12 and more unstack so you can't have 30 muta's 1 shotting everything. Worry about including awesome skills before balance.
It's really frustrating seeing the BW pro's switch over without having these extremely visual ways of microing.
I'm fairly certain there are quotes of Blizzard explaining that they feel micro tricks are unintuitive to the viewer and therefore a negative factor for esports. I think their philosophy is to keep the game simple but with much depth. I don't agree with this view but I think it is important to understand their vision in order to persuade them.
I actually don't get what 'uninituitive' actually means except that it's a label that Blizzard uses for things they don't like. What makes something "unintuitive" really? If a set of actions creates certain unit behaviour, such as carrier micro, then that is what players can expect.
Thing is is, even if it is 'uninituitive' it doesn't even touch true newbs that don't even know how to a-move. (Yes they do exists.) They can happily right click around their massive fleet of carriers that took them 40 minutes to build from 1 stargate with 20 workers. It doesn't touch their world so 'unintuitive' doesn't even come into play. Beyond that, a competent and competitive player learns that a certain set of actions will create a desired unit response and they'll use it if they want to.
I understand this isn't your argument, but it's one that I've understood less and less.
Dumbing things down tend to work (from a business POV)
Thanks for this Tyler, making the current carrier more like the BW one will make Protoss late-game armies so much more interesting, especially now that they have the tempest and will most likely go air more often.
It seems like Blizz is listening to the community more currently since the beta is out and all, so hopefully this doesn't fall on deaf ears.
Incredible video, Nony. I've heard these complaints about carrier micro forever but, having been a complete noob at bw, I didn't really know what y'all were talking about. By being so analytic in your video, you've made the differences obvious. Let's hope Blizzard takes notice of this thread and at least tries to implement some of your requests. David Kim's latest patch note were full of "we thought it would be cool to try x" comments, let's hope that attitude is real. At the very least, it would be fun to see if I could master some of these micro techniques. What does blizzard have to lose? If its totally imbalanced, they can just take the carrier back out. And if HOTS doesn't implement the possibility of this micro, I'm sure I'm not going to be the only one firing up BW a couple of times to check this out.
Blizzard seems to hate invisibile mechanics that aren't immediately obvious. this is one of them. i'd be very suprised if they implemented anything like this.
i'd like to thank Nony however, as this video will be incredibly useful to me. <3
On September 17 2012 11:27 MavercK wrote: Blizzard seems to hate invisibile mechanics that aren't immediately obvious. this is one of them. i'd be very suprised if they implemented anything like this.
i'd like to thank Nony however, as this video will be incredibly useful to me. <3
I don't think it's that farfetch'd at all. SC2 Carriers already have leash range which is an "invisible mechanic" but it just doesn't work properly. They should fix the SC2 implementation of leash range.
absolutely loved the video. had no idea how carrier micro worked in bw, so this is both educational and making me rage at blizzard for ruining it in sc2
It's not that they wouldn't implement these things if they could, it's probably just that they can't without meddling with the engine.
It's how they've always made their games. They code the engine, finish most of the core work, and then at the end of the production cycle they hold a short beta test to iron out the kinks (bugs, balance, various other minor changes).
This might've worked out in the past (mostly through luck), but I believe it's an archaic way of approaching game design for competitive games. Had they showcased Starcraft II earlier in its production cycle, I believe there would have been a fair chance of the engine being rewritten.
Let's be frank: the only one in Blizzards developing team who might have had an idea of the many nuances that made awesome micro possible in Brood War would have been David Kim. I'm not sure as to when they hired him, but I sort of doubt he would have felt comfortable schooling a team of senior programmers/designers even if he happened to be there from the beginning of SCII's development.
The only reason moving shot doesn't exist in the same capacity as before, for example, is because of an engine coding decision. Where before in BW a unit would forcefully be made to travel in the direction it would be firing -- in SCII they were made to revolve around their axis while acquiring a target (and while revolving they will keep gliding in their original direction).
Units like the vulture, which had a wide allowed arc of attack and a short attack animation would therefore make a spasming motion while attacking (if not for the move command snapping them out of their coded behavior of travelling towards the target they're firing at, they would turn around and glide towards the enemy).
In contrast, we have SC2. Where phoenixes, corruptors, vikings etc will turn around their axis ("locking on to the target") while gliding backwards/whichever direction they were traveling prior to the issuing of the attack command. The problem being that they subsequently can't be "snapped" out of their behavior.. As far as I can tell, the unit coming to a stand still has a lot to do with it facing one direction, while simultaneously moving in another direction upon the completion of the animation.
The SC2 engine won't let the unit continue its motion unless it, at the end of the attack animation, faces the same direction in which its already gliding (the only circumstance where a crude form of moving shot is made possible in SCII). Sometimes when you chase one muta with another muta travelling in a very very very straight line, you can actually keep up with the muta you're chasing. But if the muta you're chasing/controlling so much as moves a couple of degrees from a straight alignment during the attack animation, the muta will no longer be facing in the exact direction in which its gliding. This is where the engine intervenes (a mutalisk moving in a direction it's not facing? This must be corrected before we can allow it to continue moving!).
This is why, in a pro game, when you see a large flock of mutas chasing another flock of mutas, you will see the mutas which revolve around their axis the most during the attack animation lag behind the most after being issued a move command following said attack animation.
On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote: It's not that they wouldn't implement these things if they could, it's probably just that they can't without meddling with the engine.
It's how they've always made their games. They code the engine, finish most of the core work, and then at the end of the production cycle they hold a short beta test to iron out the kinks (bugs, balance, various other minor changes).
This might've worked out in the past (mostly through luck), but I believe it's an archaic way of approaching game design for competitive games. Had they showcased Starcraft II earlier in its production cycle, I believe there would have been a fair chance of the engine being rewritten.
Let's be frank: the only one in Blizzards developing team who might have had an idea of the many nuances that made awesome micro possible in Brood War would have been David Kim. I'm not sure as to when they hired him, but I sort of doubt he would have felt comfortable schooling a team of senior programmers/designers even if he happened to be there from the beginning of SCII's development.
The only reason moving shot doesn't exist in the same capacity as before, for example, is because of an engine coding decision. Where before in BW a unit would forcefully be made to travel in the direction it would be firing -- in SCII they were made to revolve around their axis while acquiring a target (and while revolving they will keep gliding in their original direction).
Units like the vulture, which had a wide allowed arc of attack and a short attack animation would therefore make a spasming motion while attacking (if not for the move command snapping them out of their coded behavior of travelling towards the target they're firing at, they would turn around and glide towards the enemy).
In contrast, we have SC2. Where phoenixes, corruptors, vikings etc will turn around their axis ("locking on to the target") while gliding backwards/whichever direction they were traveling prior to the issuing of the attack command. The problem being that they subsequently can't be "snapped" out of their behavior.. As far as I can tell, the unit coming to a stand still has a lot to do with it facing one direction, while simultaneously moving in another direction upon the completion of the animation.
The SC2 engine won't let the unit continue its motion unless it, at the end of the attack animation, faces the same direction in which its already gliding (the only circumstance where a crude form of moving shot is made possible in SCII). Sometimes when you chase one muta with another muta travelling in a very very very straight line, you can actually keep up with the muta you're chasing. But if the muta you're chasing/controlling so much as moves a couple of degrees from a straight alignment during the attack animation, the muta will no longer be facing in the exact direction in which its gliding. This is where the engine intervenes (a mutalisk moving in a direction it's not facing? This must be corrected before we can allow it to continue moving!).
This is why, in a pro game, when you see a large flock of mutas chasing another flock of mutas, you will see the mutas revolving around their axis the most during the attack animation lag behind the most after being issued a move command following said attack animation.
So your saying that it isnt possible for a patch to implement some of the BW characteristics of the carrier into sc2? ive often wondered why none of the bw carrier attributes where ever applied to the sc2 carrier in a patch (or even just a balance test) to see if the carrier couldnt be fixed up a little
On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote: It's not that they wouldn't implement these things if they could, it's probably just that they can't without meddling with the engine.
It's how they've always made their games. They code the engine, finish most of the core work, and then at the end of the production cycle they hold a short beta test to iron out the kinks (bugs, balance, various other minor changes).
This might've worked out in the past (mostly through luck), but I believe it's an archaic way of approaching game design for competitive games. Had they showcased Starcraft II earlier in its production cycle, I believe there would have been a fair chance of the engine being rewritten.
Let's be frank: the only one in Blizzards developing team who might have had an idea of the many nuances that made awesome micro possible in Brood War would have been David Kim. I'm not sure as to when they hired him, but I sort of doubt he would have felt comfortable schooling a team of senior programmers/designers even if he happened to be there from the beginning of SCII's development.
The only reason moving shot doesn't exist in the same capacity as before, for example, is because of an engine coding decision. Where before in BW a unit would forcefully be made to travel in the direction it would be firing -- in SCII they were made to revolve around their axis while acquiring a target (and while revolving they will keep gliding in their original direction).
Units like the vulture, which had a wide allowed arc of attack and a short attack animation would therefore make a spasming motion while attacking (if not for the move command snapping them out of their coded behavior of travelling towards the target they're firing at, they would turn around and glide towards the enemy).
In contrast, we have SC2. Where phoenixes, corruptors, vikings etc will turn around their axis ("locking on to the target") while gliding backwards/whichever direction they were traveling prior to the issuing of the attack command. The problem being that they subsequently can't be "snapped" out of their behavior.. As far as I can tell, the unit coming to a stand still has a lot to do with it facing one direction, while simultaneously moving in another direction upon the completion of the animation.
The SC2 engine won't let the unit continue its motion unless it, at the end of the attack animation, faces the same direction in which its already gliding (the only circumstance where a crude form of moving shot is made possible in SCII). Sometimes when you chase one muta with another muta travelling in a very very very straight line, you can actually keep up with the muta you're chasing. But if the muta you're chasing/controlling so much as moves a couple of degrees from a straight alignment during the attack animation, the muta will no longer be facing in the exact direction in which its gliding. This is where the engine intervenes (a mutalisk moving in a direction it's not facing? This must be corrected before we can allow it to continue moving!).
This is why, in a pro game, when you see a large flock of mutas chasing another flock of mutas, you will see the mutas revolving around their axis the most during the attack animation lag behind the most after being issued a move command following said attack animation.
So your saying that it isnt possible for a patch to implement some of the BW characteristics of the carrier into sc2? ive often wondered why none of the bw carrier attributes where ever applied to the sc2 carrier in a patch (or even just a balance test) to see if the carrier couldnt be fixed up a little
That is what he's saying, though I wonder how complex the coding is, that it's this much of a non-answer to change it for the carrier alone. I know some programs have millions of lines of code, but...i dont know, it seems like it should be do-able with blizzard.
Wow, very insightful video! Timing is perfect, too! Hopefully, they will not only leave the Carrier in the game, but they'll give it the interesting micro that made it very fun.
Wow awesome video Tyler, I wasn't even aware that Carriers had special micro you could do because I never use them, that would be awesome if they switched it back! Thank you for this :D
I think this video is a really succinct way of showing how SC2 may have been made less complex in some areas, effecting how rewarding the game is for skillful players (and viewers). This video shows plainly how the carrier change was lame for the game in general. Still, do I think blizzard doesn't understand the mechanics of their own units in BW after ten years? Not really. It was probably time and money they didn't want to spend.
On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote: It's not that they wouldn't implement these things if they could, it's probably just that they can't without meddling with the engine.
It's how they've always made their games. They code the engine, finish most of the core work, and then at the end of the production cycle they hold a short beta test to iron out the kinks (bugs, balance, various other minor changes).
This might've worked out in the past (mostly through luck), but I believe it's an archaic way of approaching game design for competitive games. Had they showcased Starcraft II earlier in its production cycle, I believe there would have been a fair chance of the engine being rewritten.
Let's be frank: the only one in Blizzards developing team who might have had an idea of the many nuances that made awesome micro possible in Brood War would have been David Kim. I'm not sure as to when they hired him, but I sort of doubt he would have felt comfortable schooling a team of senior programmers/designers even if he happened to be there from the beginning of SCII's development.
The only reason moving shot doesn't exist in the same capacity as before, for example, is because of an engine coding decision. Where before in BW a unit would forcefully be made to travel in the direction it would be firing -- in SCII they were made to revolve around their axis while acquiring a target (and while revolving they will keep gliding in their original direction).
Units like the vulture, which had a wide allowed arc of attack and a short attack animation would therefore make a spasming motion while attacking (if not for the move command snapping them out of their coded behavior of travelling towards the target they're firing at, they would turn around and glide towards the enemy).
In contrast, we have SC2. Where phoenixes, corruptors, vikings etc will turn around their axis ("locking on to the target") while gliding backwards/whichever direction they were traveling prior to the issuing of the attack command. The problem being that they subsequently can't be "snapped" out of their behavior.. As far as I can tell, the unit coming to a stand still has a lot to do with it facing one direction, while simultaneously moving in another direction upon the completion of the animation.
The SC2 engine won't let the unit continue its motion unless it, at the end of the attack animation, faces the same direction in which its already gliding (the only circumstance where a crude form of moving shot is made possible in SCII). Sometimes when you chase one muta with another muta travelling in a very very very straight line, you can actually keep up with the muta you're chasing. But if the muta you're chasing/controlling so much as moves a couple of degrees from a straight alignment during the attack animation, the muta will no longer be facing in the exact direction in which its gliding. This is where the engine intervenes (a mutalisk moving in a direction it's not facing? This must be corrected before we can allow it to continue moving!).
This is why, in a pro game, when you see a large flock of mutas chasing another flock of mutas, you will see the mutas revolving around their axis the most during the attack animation lag behind the most after being issued a move command following said attack animation.
So your saying that it isnt possible for a patch to implement some of the BW characteristics of the carrier into sc2? ive often wondered why none of the bw carrier attributes where ever applied to the sc2 carrier in a patch (or even just a balance test) to see if the carrier couldnt be fixed up a little
That is what he's saying, though I wonder how complex the coding is, that it's this much of a non-answer to change it for the carrier alone. I know some programs have millions of lines of code, but...i dont know, it seems like it should be do-able with blizzard.
yeah man this is a totally different language to me once we start talking about code lol... my reaction would be to suggest that the code for the carrier be changed only but then I guess were just back to talking about tylers patch suggestions.. I dont even know if its possible to do that im pretty computer illiterate but w/e
Thanks so much for this. I could never understand how a unit with the potential of the BW Carrier could all of a sudden suck so hard in SC2.
If they wanted to address this, they could. I believe in their abilities. I just don't believe they truly want to. Compare Carrier patch notes with Bunker patch notes. Speaks volumes.
On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote: The SC2 engine won't let the unit continue its motion unless it, at the end of the attack animation, faces the same direction in which its already gliding (the only circumstance where a crude form of moving shot is made possible in SCII). Sometimes when you chase one muta with another muta travelling in a very very very straight line, you can actually keep up with the muta you're chasing. But if the muta you're chasing/controlling so much as moves a couple of degrees from a straight alignment during the attack animation, the muta will no longer be facing in the exact direction in which its gliding. This is where the engine intervenes (a mutalisk moving in a direction it's not facing? This must be corrected before we can allow it to continue moving!).
How could Blizzard be so far off the mark on this?
Why did they just resign themselves to the position that "the Carrier has no place in the game because its role is already filled by other units"? Why was there never an analysis like this conducted to look at what might lie at the heart of the differences between BW and SC2? It would not be particularly difficult to implement these AI changes. I just can't fathom why Blizzard didn't play around with these settings when it was clear that the Carrier was struggling.
This is brilliant. Good job NonY. I echo what whatthefat has said.
On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote: It's not that they wouldn't implement these things if they could, it's probably just that they can't without meddling with the engine.
It's how they've always made their games. They code the engine, finish most of the core work, and then at the end of the production cycle they hold a short beta test to iron out the kinks (bugs, balance, various other minor changes).
This might've worked out in the past (mostly through luck), but I believe it's an archaic way of approaching game design for competitive games. Had they showcased Starcraft II earlier in its production cycle, I believe there would have been a fair chance of the engine being rewritten.
Let's be frank: the only one in Blizzards developing team who might have had an idea of the many nuances that made awesome micro possible in Brood War would have been David Kim. I'm not sure as to when they hired him, but I sort of doubt he would have felt comfortable schooling a team of senior programmers/designers even if he happened to be there from the beginning of SCII's development.
The only reason moving shot doesn't exist in the same capacity as before, for example, is because of an engine coding decision. Where before in BW a unit would forcefully be made to travel in the direction it would be firing -- in SCII they were made to revolve around their axis while acquiring a target (and while revolving they will keep gliding in their original direction).
Units like the vulture, which had a wide allowed arc of attack and a short attack animation would therefore make a spasming motion while attacking (if not for the move command snapping them out of their coded behavior of travelling towards the target they're firing at, they would turn around and glide towards the enemy).
In contrast, we have SC2. Where phoenixes, corruptors, vikings etc will turn around their axis ("locking on to the target") while gliding backwards/whichever direction they were traveling prior to the issuing of the attack command. The problem being that they subsequently can't be "snapped" out of their behavior.. As far as I can tell, the unit coming to a stand still has a lot to do with it facing one direction, while simultaneously moving in another direction upon the completion of the animation.
The SC2 engine won't let the unit continue its motion unless it, at the end of the attack animation, faces the same direction in which its already gliding (the only circumstance where a crude form of moving shot is made possible in SCII). Sometimes when you chase one muta with another muta travelling in a very very very straight line, you can actually keep up with the muta you're chasing. But if the muta you're chasing/controlling so much as moves a couple of degrees from a straight alignment during the attack animation, the muta will no longer be facing in the exact direction in which its gliding. This is where the engine intervenes (a mutalisk moving in a direction it's not facing? This must be corrected before we can allow it to continue moving!).
This is why, in a pro game, when you see a large flock of mutas chasing another flock of mutas, you will see the mutas which revolve around their axis the most during the attack animation lag behind the most after being issued a move command following said attack animation.
I'm pretty certain people could make it work - it's just that most people who have attempted to do this don't understand just how carrier micro works.
On September 17 2012 13:31 whatthefat wrote: "the Carrier has no place in the game because its role is already filled by other units"?
i dont believe them anymore when they say this. it sounds far too much like an excuse. one they aren't even consistent with. i get really frustrated thinking about why they cut the lurker, because it overlapped with the baneling?. then they add the swarm host... when we have the broodlord already and that isn't overlapping roles?
After toying around in the editor a bit, I think it may be possible for to do this stuff through the editor. I don't understand how everything works well enough to do it myself, but I'm curious if the 'Attack Redirect' ability, which essentially redirects a bunker's attack move command to the marines/marauders inside, could be modified to do the same for carriers. At the very least, it's a start.
After that, maybe you could somehow add a validator that doesn't let interceptors reenter the hangar as long as the carrier is moving? idk if that's even possible though, it might require a full-on redesign of how carriers launch interceptors.
As for interceptors being clickable, that one's for sure doable. You just need to go the unit and uncheck the 'unselectable' and 'untargetable' flags, and then either A) Blizzard (or someone who knows how to create models) needs to create and interceptor model that has attach points or B) you need to add a dummy model that has attach points that is invisible.
Hopefully I'm not wrong in assuming that we can in fact add this stuff ourselves. At least the retargeting thing should be doable, and maybe that's enough to make carriers cool again.
This was a really fantastic post. I never played BW competitively, but I remember the idiotic frustration of using the reaver. When people exalt it I just sort of groan to myself and think, "bad pathing should not be part of a unit's balance." It makes me want to defend SCII more vigorously, even as I do understand that I'm truly not "getting it" because I wasn't into competitive BW.
This post is the opposite of that. These concerns make so much sense, and I don't think they're based on buggy AI whatsoever. I basically don't play Protoss, and so I didn't even realize until now that the SCII carrier couldn't switch targets within leash range. That's so awful that I can't believe it wasn't corrected in the WoL beta. I also fully support the idea of instant deployment being micro-based rather than research based. Just typing that sentence makes me finally understand the old-timers here when they complain about BW unit design vs SCII unit design. And if you do have instant deployment as a micro-based ability, I could see regenerating interceptors as a potential upgrade instead. The ability to target your own interceptors is definitley the most minor issue, and the one I would qualify as the most buggy. The point is that the opponent needs to click on the big thingy in the back instead of A-moving against interceptors; it's to create AI target confusion, not micro-based target confusion.
On September 17 2012 11:57 LaLuSh wrote: It's not that they wouldn't implement these things if they could, it's probably just that they can't without meddling with the engine.
It's how they've always made their games. They code the engine, finish most of the core work, and then at the end of the production cycle they hold a short beta test to iron out the kinks (bugs, balance, various other minor changes).
This might've worked out in the past (mostly through luck), but I believe it's an archaic way of approaching game design for competitive games. Had they showcased Starcraft II earlier in its production cycle, I believe there would have been a fair chance of the engine being rewritten.
In regards to that, I kinda like how open to the community the developers of Grim Dawn are during development. It's not that they have no vision of the project and are just following the whims of their forum users, but they soliciting feedback even at the early stages. Who knows, maybe it'll be no better than Diablo 3, but it'll be an interesting proof of concept on how to make a computer game with community input. I guess to some extent DOTA 2 is that as well given that they're including LAN of all things.
Just typing that sentence makes me finally understand the old-timers here when they complain about BW unit design vs SCII unit design.
Hoorah Sometimes it feels like we're speaking a foreign language.
whatthefat said it well, truly there could be something to be done about this, and there really isn't too much of an excuse because this carrier micro would only help out both the competitive and casual scene.
Also I would also be up for Nony explaining BW mechanics as well, this was very enlightening. I don't think I disagreed with a single point he made there, down to the fact that I didn't understand the intricacies of carrier micro but as a fan could tell who had good or bad carrier micro and whatnot. So good :D
Never knew about this, this just makes BW that much deeper for me now wow :O
Now I get why carrieres aren't used in SC2. Thanks for the insight
On September 17 2012 13:55 Firenza wrote: This was a really fantastic post. I never played BW competitively, but I remember the idiotic frustration of using the reaver. When people exalt it I just sort of groan to myself and think, "bad pathing should not be part of a unit's balance." It makes me want to defend SCII more vigorously, even as I do understand that I'm truly not "getting it" because I wasn't into competitive BW.
This post is the opposite of that. These concerns make so much sense, and I don't think they're based on buggy AI whatsoever. I basically don't play Protoss, and so I didn't even realize until now that the SCII carrier couldn't switch targets within leash range. That's so awful that I can't believe it wasn't corrected in the WoL beta. I also fully support the idea of instant deployment being micro-based rather than research based. Just typing that sentence makes me finally understand the old-timers here when they complain about BW unit design vs SCII unit design. And if you do have instant deployment as a micro-based ability, I could see regenerating interceptors as a potential upgrade instead. The ability to target your own interceptors is definitley the most minor issue, and the one I would qualify as the most buggy. The point is that the opponent needs to click on the big thingy in the back instead of A-moving against interceptors; it's to create AI target confusion, not micro-based target confusion.
:D Remember it's the old timers who are the hungriest for a successor to BW. Nobody enjoys bitching.
On September 17 2012 15:06 Jumperer wrote: MORE VIDEOS NONY. TELL 'EM BLIZZARD ABOUT BW MECHANICS.
minus the caps I think this post is pretty awesome! A series about BW mechanics like hold micro, Hell even Friendly Spidermines would be cool to go over since most people here don't know about them.
The programming solution should be rather simple actually, and shouldn't involve tweaking the underlying engine or breaking the general unit behavior.
First they need to make Interceptors an actual unit - which should be simple enough, given that there's already a class for similar type of "swarm" units (Broodlings, Locusts). That way, Carriers would need range 8 to release Interceptors on a target inititally, but Interceptors themselves have a normal unit behavior and can be ordered to attack at maximum leash range once they're already out.
Also, didn't SC2BW already make Carriers (and most other units) control like in Brood War? That should be evidence enough that "it's complicated" is just a copout reason to not make the changes.
Thank you for this video. As someone who did not really play brood war it is awesome to discover this type of things. Plus the carrier seems to work only when catching your opponent by surprise right now so it clearly needs some change.
Thank you for the video and clear, in-depth explanations. I've been going about carrier micro incorrectly all along and this discussion of its particulars should help me use their full potential in BW. I hope these or similar intricacies make their way to SC2 as well.
On September 17 2012 15:24 Talin wrote: The programming solution should be rather simple actually, and shouldn't involve tweaking the underlying engine or breaking the general unit behavior.
First they need to make Interceptors an actual unit - which should be simple enough, given that there's already a class for similar type of "swarm" units (Broodlings, Locusts). That way, Carriers would need range 8 to release Interceptors on a target inititally, but Interceptors themselves have a normal unit behavior and can be ordered to attack at maximum leash range once they're already out.
Also, didn't SC2BW already make Carriers (and most other units) control like in Brood War? That should be evidence enough that "it's complicated" is just a copout reason to not make the changes.
in the SC2BW mod Carriers don't work like they do in BW I just tested it so they might not even have known about it or a way to make it work.
Blizzard needs to add back these little micro tricks that were in BW into HOTS. Bugs/tricks like vulture micro, mutalisk stacking, etc were what made BW so amazing to watch.
As you can plainly see from my post count, this is the first time I've felt compelled to post in here, though I've been coming here for a long while now for the epic SC2 coverage.
As a map maker who works on an expanded melee map called SC2+: Bizarro World, I'm reasonably familiar with the data editor. I had no idea what BW carrier micro really was - and subsequently was just buffing the numbers on the carrier to make it actually fun to play with (though I can't guarantee anything about real balance)
After seeing this thread, I think I finally know what people mean when they talk about BW carrier micro.
And I believe I have successfully created a decent work-around solution for target switching in the leash zone completely within the data editor (meaning that in principle, Blizzard could do this without any hardcoding changes).
-> search for the map named "Bizarro Carrier" on NA. I set it up with two planetary fortresses and 2 carriers for P1 to play around with (you can ignore all the other game changes - this is just about the carrier micro right now)
If anyone is wondering about how the standard carrier's weapon actually works - it's actually a relatively complex affair. It also uses utilizes a few opaque, hard-coded ability/effect types with relatively limited customization options. A lot of its particular behaviours can't be directly controlled. (for anyone else interested, the brood lord weapon is even more complicated than the carriers)
For example, if you've ever played Star Battles, you'll notice that you can't launch your interceptors while your ship is moving. As cool as it would be to launch on the move, you simply can't do it.
As far as I can tell, this is a limitation of the game engine itself. A unit cannot use two 'active' abilities at the same time.(eg. the medivac cannot Move and use Heal simultaneously)
I speculate that an incredibly elaborate trigger could handle it, but that's neither here nor there since Blizzard won't put triggers in their maps.
At this moment in the middle of the night, I haven't any solid idea how to mimic the continuous deployment.
its not only the carrier... but non bw players hardly know about this and most of the actual blizzard guys never worked on bw and have no clue about it
On September 17 2012 09:57 a176 wrote: if toss can go mothership with regularity in sc2, they can definitely try for carrier switches
but i still wonder about corrupter counter
Leash range > corruptor range so it would make for some really epic micro battles.
They're going to have to do something about Fungal Growth...it already makes TvZ a pain in the butt. It's hard to handle 20+ corruptors shift-clicked onto your carriers when you can't move your junk at all.
Perhaps Blizzard could design Fungal Growth to work differently on capital ships. 10-20% speed/dmg(from original dmg) reduce short period of time so that carriers can still move when in effect of fungal. Smaller units Fungal works as normally.
On September 17 2012 09:57 a176 wrote: if toss can go mothership with regularity in sc2, they can definitely try for carrier switches
but i still wonder about corrupter counter
Leash range > corruptor range so it would make for some really epic micro battles.
They're going to have to do something about Fungal Growth...it already makes TvZ a pain in the butt. It's hard to handle 20+ corruptors shift-clicked onto your carriers when you can't move your junk at all.
Perhaps Blizzard could design Fungal Growth to work differently on capital ships. 10-20% speed/dmg(from original dmg) reduce short period of time so that carriers can still move when in effect of fungal. Smaller units Fungal works as normally.
If blizzard reads this and implements what Nony presented then carrier will be a unit to be feared again.
It makes you wonder though, how hard would it be to do this so that it would function in the same manner as in BW. BW's engine is outdated and made of old coding methods but it's still such a beautiful thing, I wonder how much of the carrier's mechanics were intended to truly work as they do.
On September 17 2012 17:46 Andr3 wrote: If blizzard reads this and implements what Nony presented then carrier will be a unit to be feared again.
It would be feared against Mech and BL armies that don't have many infestors. Marines and Fungal do insane dps vs interceptors. These abilities just give Carriers a fighting Chance.
On September 17 2012 17:56 winthrop wrote: so in starcraft 2 the carrier bug is fixed. dont whine
You know that many things you are using nowadays were first unintended(daily life)? So in programming language they were bugs or unintended mechanics. But because they proved to be useful they remained untouched or even built upon, thus switching up their official unintended status for intended, because letting it stay was concious acceptance of its usefulness.
there are so many things in sc2 designed poorly, but anybody rarely speaks out about it... i remember lalush posting a huge thread about micro, that was very good.
On September 17 2012 15:24 Talin wrote: The programming solution should be rather simple actually, and shouldn't involve tweaking the underlying engine or breaking the general unit behavior.
First they need to make Interceptors an actual unit - which should be simple enough, given that there's already a class for similar type of "swarm" units (Broodlings, Locusts). That way, Carriers would need range 8 to release Interceptors on a target inititally, but Interceptors themselves have a normal unit behavior and can be ordered to attack at maximum leash range once they're already out.
Also, didn't SC2BW already make Carriers (and most other units) control like in Brood War? That should be evidence enough that "it's complicated" is just a copout reason to not make the changes.
in the SC2BW mod Carriers don't work like they do in BW I just tested it so they might not even have known about it or a way to make it work.
your absolutely right. but this just became my priority. it's hard to find extremely specific information about BW like this.
Excellent video. I hope that if Blizzard decides not to go with this that we get to see a thought out response from their side that addresses the suggestions brought up here.
On September 17 2012 05:28 AxiR wrote: I think Blizzard is hesitating to implement the "old" carrier because it would overlap a little bit with role of the tempest.
On September 17 2012 05:28 AxiR wrote: I think Blizzard is hesitating to implement the "old" carrier because it would overlap a little bit with role of the tempest.
In that case remove the tempest.
Oh yes that too, but i agree just remove the tempest then. It was already just a stripped down carrier to gain some range in exchange for everything the carrier was good at. And the carrier even now fills the role almost better imo. (going into fungal range is no issue anymore with the new oracle skill.)
Excellent post, and I agree with Nazgul, if this isn't implemented I would really like to know why as I feel this would help carriers a lot and have wondered for over a year why it was not implemented to encourage carrier use since they felt it wasn't used.
NonY, thanks for sharing this. There are what seemed to be so many problems with the Carrier in SC2, but what you've said nails the one and only real issue.
The most interesting part about it, is that it'd be a mechanical buff, instead of a stat buff. All in all, I really can't see them not doing these changes, because quite frankly it seems they didn't even know this stuff, or that it didn't survive from BW-SC2 mechanically.
I'm all for this. More micro and more skill required actions makes for a way cooler game. And it just makes it that more awesome when you see someone pull it off in a game where a lot is at stake.
We should realise that this won't be the magic bullet that a lot of people reckon it is, although it is definitely a very much needed change.
For carriers to be viable, we need disruption web (shuts down units, use it on clumps of AA units) or the other races to use AA units with slow rates of fire like the goliath, so that the interceptors wont get obliterated as soon as they launch out. Then the intercepters have time to be repaired.
Requirements for Carrier are: Terran goes mech and sacrifices a bit of AA by going goliaths instead of marines, which can't shoot down interceptors easily. or Protoss can prevent AA with a spell like disruption web. Maybe give it to the Phoenix.
On September 17 2012 19:09 dafnay wrote: nony should post this in the "pro only" battle net forum section to get blizz attention like Grubby did.
Didn't know there was one, but this sounds like a good idea. Or at least someone should refer it.
Naww, we don´t need to copy every last thing in bw. Matchups work different, so mech versus Protoss isn´t a natural choice. Carriers are probably going to be more relevant versus Zerg as that race lacks anti air by default.
Just hope this gets into the beta and see from there. Micro ability will go a long way to make a fringe unit a staple unit, I´m sure.
On September 17 2012 07:33 puppykiller wrote: It's funny because it actually goes much deeper than this. Nony didn't even get to mentioning how goliath vs carrier works. If carriers are left in the open goliaths (which are a bit faster than carriers) can simply walk under them and kill them very quickly. For this reason carriers tend to be deployed in areas in which the terran can't maneuver there goliaths very well. Usually this means over mineral lines or from behind cliffs that are near key points of the map. In these locations the carriers can easily retreat if goliaths get to close and since often times few goliaths will be able to shoot at a time, the carriers will have significantly more dps. In order for the goliaths to combat this, they will often back off from the ridge a bit and shoot down the carriers interceptors rather than put themselves in an area in which they are at the carriers mercy near by the maps obstructions. This forces the carriers to move forward, which in turn leaves them vulnerable to the goliaths running under them and dispatching of them rapidly. However if the goliaths move too far back the carriers will just ignore them and continue kill whatever buildings/expansion they were attacking in the first place. This creates a really high level of skill micro dynamic between the players that is very interesting for an observer to watch.
EDIT: lol looks like while I was writing this post someone already posted the vod above.
A further point about gol vs carrier is when it's best for the gols to shoot directly at carriers and when its best to pick off interceptors. If a terran can get a clean shot at the carriers its usually best to take the shot. But if the toss has very little eco left, staying further out of range and targeting interceptors becomes a viable option. Flash would often use this tactic: During scouted carrier switch break up army into small working groups. Send those small working groups to assault each of the remaining active toss bases with the goal of killing the nexus/workers. Make tons of gols, but never run them in so close to the carriers that they get picked off easily, make the toss micro the carriers well. Staying back, the only units you can really target are the ints, but you can essentially starve him by picking off interceptors and keeping his mining bases to a minimum. Once the interceptor count gets low the toss will attempt a retreat, if you have an opportunity, pick off a few carriers.
Very informative video. I always wondered why the Carrier was so weak in WoL. Now I can totally understand and these ways of micro look funny and strong.
Really awesome post Tyler, I hope you post this over on the Battle.net forums to get blizzards attention!
The only issue I see is carriers might become too powerful against mech since the thor sucks against armored targets and finds it hard to kill interceptors. If they gave us a goliath style unit it'd own though.
On September 17 2012 21:04 Qikz wrote: Really awesome post Tyler, I hope you post this over on the Battle.net forums to get blizzards attention!
The only issue I see is carriers might become too powerful against mech since the thor sucks against armored targets and finds it hard to kill interceptors. If they gave us a goliath style unit it'd own though.
Indeed, but thats why this is one of the best times to change/keep the Carrier. With it being the HotS closed beta, they can make all the adjustments and additions they need to, and considering they just dropped the Warhound, its even more likely everything can work out; Carrier is fixed, and Terran get a new unit.
Great post and video Nony. I can't believe they destroyed such an amazing unit and to even think about removing it without re-introducing these mechanics. This is the kind of units we want to see in SC2. Let's start fixing things with the carrier.
Really good video, appreciate it very much. I hope you guys do more of these kind of insightful videoes which frankly,... are easy for developers to understand without having to 'get what you're saying' in text.
On September 17 2012 21:16 i)awn wrote: Great post and video Nony. I can't believe they destroyed such an amazing unit and to even think about removing it without re-introducing these mechanics. This is the kind of units we want to see in SC2. Let's start fixing things with the carrier.
In Blizzard's defense, I don't think they "destroyed" the carrier in WOL.
The thing is, most micro mechanics in BW like carrier micro, vulture micro, bad pathing, etc were accidents by the engine programmers. They were like mini bugs that made the game interesting, but they were not deliberately put in the game.
I think Blizzard has not been moving towards things like these because they have to deliberately re-program the game engine to do these changes. They coded an new engine specifically for SC2, they did not just make the old 2D engine into 3D. In a sense, its a lot like us asking Blizzard to "break" the game instead of us asking for a new feature to be put in.
So, this lack of micro is not really blizzard "destroying" a unit (unlike LAN support, now THAT was deliberate). Its more like, the programmers, especially the pathing guys were doing too much of a good job.
I think the best way to convince Blizzard to do this is for some of the Galaxy Editor experts here in TL to try and code this into the game via the Triggers. Without breaking/hacking/re-programming the engine. This should get Blizzard's attention.
I never knew this either, man Tyler has like the best voice for explaining stuff like this. Now I know this though, it definately points out a huge difference.
I mean in a battle, the difference with staying 8-11 range away is astounding, that's outside thor range, viking range, fungal range, neural range, makes HSM harder to cast, it really does sound needed.
On September 17 2012 09:15 Quotidian wrote: Now make a video explaining why Blizzard should remove the Colossus and bring back the Reaver
I want them to make a video explaining that gateways and warpgates should have a concession / tradeoff. Something which clearly explains that having to decide between the two adds to the strategy for the game. Rather than just having an upgrade you do once and never switch back. It's madness (long story short, the build time / cooldowns for the 2 buildings should basically be opposite)
On September 17 2012 09:15 Quotidian wrote: Now make a video explaining why Blizzard should remove the Colossus and bring back the Reaver
I want them to make a video explaining that gateways and warpgates should have a concession / tradeoff. Something which clearly explains that having to decide between the two adds to the strategy for the game. Rather than just having an upgrade you do once and never switch back. It's madness (long story short, the build time / cooldowns for the 2 buildings should basically be opposite)
I think the build times in the current game balance is the effect for chronoboost. We can chronoboost non-warpgate build times easier so they cant shorten it as much or risk breaking early game.
On September 17 2012 16:19 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote: Greetings TL.
As you can plainly see from my post count, this is the first time I've felt compelled to post in here, though I've been coming here for a long while now for the epic SC2 coverage.
As a map maker who works on an expanded melee map called SC2+: Bizarro World, I'm reasonably familiar with the data editor. I had no idea what BW carrier micro really was - and subsequently was just buffing the numbers on the carrier to make it actually fun to play with (though I can't guarantee anything about real balance)
After seeing this thread, I think I finally know what people mean when they talk about BW carrier micro.
And I believe I have successfully created a decent work-around solution for target switching in the leash zone completely within the data editor (meaning that in principle, Blizzard could do this without any hardcoding changes).
-> search for the map named "Bizarro Carrier" on NA. I set it up with two planetary fortresses and 2 carriers for P1 to play around with (you can ignore all the other game changes - this is just about the carrier micro right now)
If anyone is wondering about how the standard carrier's weapon actually works - it's actually a relatively complex affair. It also uses utilizes a few opaque, hard-coded ability/effect types with relatively limited customization options. A lot of its particular behaviours can't be directly controlled. (for anyone else interested, the brood lord weapon is even more complicated than the carriers)
For example, if you've ever played Star Battles, you'll notice that you can't launch your interceptors while your ship is moving. As cool as it would be to launch on the move, you simply can't do it.
As far as I can tell, this is a limitation of the game engine itself. A unit cannot use two 'active' abilities at the same time.(eg. the medivac cannot Move and use Heal simultaneously)
I speculate that an incredibly elaborate trigger could handle it, but that's neither here nor there since Blizzard won't put triggers in their maps.
At this moment in the middle of the night, I haven't any solid idea how to mimic the continuous deployment.
Cmon guys, this guy has actually made a map which does exactly what (one of the skills) were and no one is testing it. I just fired it up and indeed you can change target within the leash range without requiring the need to switch to attack range.
"Bizarro Carrier" on the arcade marketplace thing - for me it was the last item in the search in the lower right.
I doubt Blizzard will do this exact implementation in sc2 for the carrier because how casual unfriendly it sounds, which is really sad because it is a great mechanic.
On September 17 2012 07:15 bgx wrote: If Blizzard would really change carrier mechanics based on this intel then i would be shocked, because that would mean blizzard haven't done thier elementary homework.
Do you mean like how they came out and said they were surprised to see terran splitting their marines against banelings , kind of like how BW terrans split their mnm against lurkers ?
They didn't do their homework, and there's no need to look at carriers to see it...
Wow you explained this really well. I didn't play BW so I had no idea about this before your video, so thank you.
This is exactly what SC2 needs IMO. Units that your casual player can still use (by just a-moving the carriers for example) with tricks like these requiring good micro if you want to get full effectiveness of unit. It allows everybody to still enjoy the unit whilst allowing the pros with excellent multi tasking to display their skills and be rewarded for it.
good stuff, but it would be a lot less effective than in bw.
when was that micro most important? against ground units using cliffs etc., prime example being goliaths. in sc2 people just throw vikings and corruptors against them and they obviously dont care about terrain and are a lot faster as well. no micro can help you when a shitload of those simply right-clicks carrier after carrier away.
On September 17 2012 20:56 Plexa wrote: Moved to HotS to get more attention
Lolled. In my mind it goes something like this Tyler: "Imma write a blog" Plexa: "No, it should be a discussion topic" Tyler: "But I..." Plexy "F*** you, it´s a discussion topic now"
On September 17 2012 21:16 i)awn wrote: Great post and video Nony. I can't believe they destroyed such an amazing unit and to even think about removing it without re-introducing these mechanics. This is the kind of units we want to see in SC2. Let's start fixing things with the carrier.
In Blizzard's defense, I don't think they "destroyed" the carrier in WOL.
The thing is, most micro mechanics in BW like carrier micro, vulture micro, bad pathing, etc were accidents by the engine programmers. They were like mini bugs that made the game interesting, but they were not deliberately put in the game.
I think Blizzard has not been moving towards things like these because they have to deliberately re-program the game engine to do these changes. They coded an new engine specifically for SC2, they did not just make the old 2D engine into 3D. In a sense, its a lot like us asking Blizzard to "break" the game instead of us asking for a new feature to be put in.
So, this lack of micro is not really blizzard "destroying" a unit (unlike LAN support, now THAT was deliberate). Its more like, the programmers, especially the pathing guys were doing too much of a good job.
I think the best way to convince Blizzard to do this is for some of the Galaxy Editor experts here in TL to try and code this into the game via the Triggers. Without breaking/hacking/re-programming the engine. This should get Blizzard's attention.
Blizzard missed the mark with a lot subtleties when it came to path finding and the A.I. in the game.
Really well done Tayler. Maybe you could do some more writing and showing for blizzard to see
Iam talking about other stuff from broodwar. Shoot while moving is what i have in mind, but more things also probably iam not sure as of now. Now is the time to change the game drastically, it would Only be for the better except the balance. But the balance arrives later and in the meanwhile makes the game better. And more FUN, more EXCITING.
Maybe its offtopic, i dont know where to write this really. Or maybe its ontopic.
On September 17 2012 22:44 valaki wrote: I don't think blizz devs (the current ones) are even aware of these mechanics.
This.
While Tyler explained the difference very well, I don't think the mechanics were left out or changed in SC2 as a concious effort - I just think these amazing micro moves of SC1/BW were never really a scripted game design but more of a nuance of the engine/mechanics. While I don't think these nerfs were fully intentional, it would be nice to see carriers viable and have the ability to be micro'd.
I would love to see these BW mechanics in SC2, I didn't know exactly how they worked before, thanks a lot for the video. The whole "keeping the interceptors out after a stop command" thing could even be tied into the Graviton Catapult upgrade if it's something Blizzard wants to make available after an upgrade only, with the interceptors swarming closely around the Carrier as a visual indication of combat readiness, ready to engage the opponent without being relaunched.
Great video, really shows everyone how it worked before (in BW).
Even until recently I recall in almost all late-game BW PvT games with carriers (in SPL/OSL and also MSL) the commentators always caught how the P player "attacked his own nexus and/or carrier" to get the interceptors ready for the incoming battle. Sounds silly without knowing how the deployment mechanics work, but makes perfect sense knowing the reason why.
On September 17 2012 22:58 OpticalShot wrote: Great video, really shows everyone how it worked before (in BW).
Even until recently I recall in almost all late-game BW PvT games with carriers (in SPL/OSL and also MSL) the commentators always caught how the P player "attacked his own nexus and/or carrier" to get the interceptors ready for the incoming battle. Sounds silly without knowing how the deployment mechanics work, but makes perfect sense knowing the reason why.
People sometimes do that now when they go Voidrays, they'll attack rocks or own units to maintain charge.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
I've been trying to explain how "taxing" mechanics can add to strategic and tactical depth. You've done it perfectly here.
On September 17 2012 21:16 i)awn wrote: Great post and video Nony. I can't believe they destroyed such an amazing unit and to even think about removing it without re-introducing these mechanics. This is the kind of units we want to see in SC2. Let's start fixing things with the carrier.
In Blizzard's defense, I don't think they "destroyed" the carrier in WOL.
The thing is, most micro mechanics in BW like carrier micro, vulture micro, bad pathing, etc were accidents by the engine programmers. They were like mini bugs that made the game interesting, but they were not deliberately put in the game.
I think Blizzard has not been moving towards things like these because they have to deliberately re-program the game engine to do these changes. They coded an new engine specifically for SC2, they did not just make the old 2D engine into 3D. In a sense, its a lot like us asking Blizzard to "break" the game instead of us asking for a new feature to be put in.
So, this lack of micro is not really blizzard "destroying" a unit (unlike LAN support, now THAT was deliberate). Its more like, the programmers, especially the pathing guys were doing too much of a good job.
That argument can be made for some other units, but it's definitely not the case with the Carrier.
The changes made to the Carrier have nothing to do with the standard unit behavior or pathing algorithms. It had to be a deliberate design choice to make Interceptors some sort of a unique pseudo-unit that doesn't have the standard unit behavior. The fact that they even introduced the upgrade to boost Interceptor launch speed is an evidence enough that they were very much aware of what they were doing.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more difficult to implement the Carrier as it is now than it was to strictly follow the "container" unit pattern.
Moreover, even though much of unit behavior in BW was accidental, the game owes much of its fame and success to these "accidents". That should be a reason enough to not only make an effort to reproduce them with as much fidelity as possible, but also to consider actively designing other/new units with similar new control tricks in mind. The latter has been notably absent from SC2 development so far, and that's much more worrisome than specific units not having the exact same behavior they did in BW.
The fault here is not with the engine and programming end, the fault is with the design philosophy that streamlines units into very rigid and specific roles, making them purely a strategic choice rather than a tool to execute strategies with.
Holy crap this was so interesting. its just like u said : I never fully understood the mechanics behind it but its def more exciting to watch, use, and would be a big boon to the game overall.
Please blizzard, put this in for once.
Also : is something like this being posted in other places aswell? Like, a place where we KNOW blizzard is atleast aware of this?
i played and watched bw for years - i was a protoss player and i didnt knew about all these, my mind is blown
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6606291001 here's the link to the hots beta discussion thread, though the guy posting it didn't put too much effort into describing the carrier problem - that's sad... would've been better if nony made the thread himself with a nice description, guys go and comment there to raise attention so blizzard takes a look
On September 17 2012 23:27 Trotim wrote: Simple question... why does the Carrier have 2 armor in WoL when it had 4 armor in BW?
Not sure, but regardless, I don't think there is an issue with its HP or damage out put. The carrier is a very strong unit in SC2 in terms of stats. The issue is of course WHEN its useful, and the fact that its value cannot be increased with micro.
I don't know, the continous deployment sounds like a "bug" to me and should not get carried over to SC2. The target switching however really should be in SC2, there is absolutly no reason why Interceptors should be able to stay out until 14range and then not be able to attack something else. It's basically the opposite of what blizzard aims for - intuitive behaviour.
Some really good points nony. I hope blizzard takes this into consideration.
Also be sure to show support for this idea on the blizzard forums. Although they read community sites, I think they pay special attention to issues brought up in their own forums.
On September 17 2012 23:54 Big J wrote: I don't know, the continous deployment sounds like a "bug" to me and should not get carried over to SC2. The target switching however really should be in SC2, there is absolutly no reason why Interceptors should be able to stay out until 14range and then not be able to attack something else. It's basically the opposite of what blizzard aims for - intuitive behaviour.
If they added it to HOTS I imagine that they could make it so while the carrier is moving and the interceptors are still deployed, they have them to the left and right of the carrier, making it more visually obvious. If the carrier is always in motion the interceptors will fly next to it, however, if they stop fully out of combat they dock and heal up. They could include Carrier Micro somewhere in the list of Challenges "ie. Advanced Protoss Micromanagement" in order to introduce these higher level and not completely obvious mechanical intricacies of several units to everyone who plays.
Excellent analysis. I hope Blizzard considers this very much. And other units should have similar nuances when possible. Anything to turn up micro is a good thing! It makes the game better and longer lasting, makes skilled usage more fun and interesting to watch.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
I've been trying to explain how "taxing" mechanics can add to strategic and tactical depth. You've done it perfectly here.
Wow still so much to learn about BW to make me appreciate it even more
On September 17 2012 19:09 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Excellent video. I hope that if Blizzard decides not to go with this that we get to see a thought out response from their side that addresses the suggestions brought up here.
I really hope so, one can't think that they don't visit TL, and there are many posts on b.net talking about it anyways. It seems so obvious that these have been the concerns from day 1 to anyone plugged into the community, but blizz devs do have a different circle it seems. . .
I would love to see old BW Carrier micro back in the game, for very raare situations at least... but i feel like it's not viable in SC2 at all :-7 the thing about carriers and air units for protoss in general is that Terran and Zerg always can pump anti air (Vikings / Corruptors) sooo fast, that it really doesn't matter if you have secret carriers waiting for him. Vikings kill carriers sooo fast, same with corruptors :-( that it really hurts me to see how weak Protoss units are in general in SC2.
They are supposed to be the slow but strong race with not many but very strong units... in a very strange way it worked the way out, that in very late game zerg has the strongest units (especially in air combats). But it's beta so why not give it a try at least
+1 I never played much sc1, and most of the time I just heard sc1 carrier's micro mechanic is more interesting but never knowing what exactly it meant. This is an awesome video to demonstrate that and as a view for sure I will appreciate good carrier micro from the pro!
Blizzard really need to listen on this one and bring back awesome micro mechanic into the game. Viewers will always appreciate godly strategy, macro, decision, but the one thing that makes everyone going insane is the micro.
I don't think blizzard's bringing back Carrier micro because it was more bugging out the game and poor design that lead to its effectiveness. I'm sure rob pardo never intended the carrier to be used this way, and i'm sure if they tried to re-implement these mechanics into SC2, they would do it in a more obvious way that would make the carrier feel more natural and organic.
On September 17 2012 05:28 AxiR wrote: I think Blizzard is hesitating to implement the "old" carrier because it would overlap a little bit with role of the tempest.
Tyler you're the best, Blizzard needs to see this!! I played Broodwar casually and even though I had absolutely no concept of what micro is, I still enjoy using carriers and instantly deploying interceptors on Big Game Hunters and owning computers(yeah I was that noob) Thank you so much for this video tyler you're awesome!
On September 18 2012 01:57 czylu wrote: I don't think blizzard's bringing back Carrier micro because it was more bugging out the game and poor design that lead to its effectiveness. I'm sure rob pardo never intended the carrier to be used this way, and i'm sure if they tried to re-implement these mechanics into SC2, they would do it in a more obvious way that would make the carrier feel more natural and organic.
Does it matter if it was accidental the first time? If it made the game awesome, it should be intentionally incorporated into the next game's design imo.
I'm actually really surprised at the amount of people who didn't know carrier micro existed. Just makes me wonder at the amount of people who play SC2 without BW experience.
I love this kind of stuff because it makes the game deeper. Old BroodWar and Dota mechanics don't really have an effect on the low level average player but make the world of difference at the pro level. This is the perfect scenario where you can have units being manipulated in a way that's near overpowered but only in extremely skilled hands.
On September 18 2012 01:57 czylu wrote: I don't think blizzard's bringing back Carrier micro because it was more bugging out the game and poor design that lead to its effectiveness. I'm sure rob pardo never intended the carrier to be used this way, and i'm sure if they tried to re-implement these mechanics into SC2, they would do it in a more obvious way that would make the carrier feel more natural and organic.
Does it matter if it was accidental the first time? If it made the game awesome, it should be intentionally incorporated into the next game's design imo.
To add an example to your point: muta-stacking. It was a bug in BW that they programmed into SC2.
I think the intention with graviton catapult is that they want you to swoop in with a few carriers, burst down a target unleashing all the interceptors in a couple seconds, move to leash range, then back out and recover your interceptors. Then do it again for each individual target.
In theory this is a fine alternative to the BW micro that functions similarly but has a slightly different tactical and strategic flavor. It's less buzz saw and more cruise missile.
However the enemy units in SC2 make it a really weak maneuver. Against zerg you'll just get fungal'd and lose interceptors as well as be unable to move your carriers around. Against terran their vikings can STACK unlike goliaths, which means it's impossible to abuse distance at the edge of an engagement. You will always take a ton of shots from vikings trying to go in and out. Even against corrupters they will get a lot of shots off while you wait for your 8 interceptors to fly out, and then your interceptors will take additional damage while they waste time returning to carriers and flying out again each time you swoop and burst.
So, adding BW micro won't give carriers quite the same strategic element they had in BW, but it will definitely make them stronger in general with correct micro. Fungal growth is still a stupid problem for carriers to have in SC2, but at least with floating interceptors they'd be able to engage vikings without taking an avalanche of missiles first.
edit: Regarding Lalush's post and the Bizarro creator's carrier micro attempt (nice!) -- it is easily within Blizzard's power to alter whatever they need to to implement BW carrier micro. Are you kidding? You could do it right now within the editor; it might not be pretty but it would work. The correct functionality could be patched in, just like doodad bridges (a completely new functionality that didn't exist at release).
On September 17 2012 16:19 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote: Greetings TL.
As you can plainly see from my post count, this is the first time I've felt compelled to post in here, though I've been coming here for a long while now for the epic SC2 coverage.
As a map maker who works on an expanded melee map called SC2+: Bizarro World, I'm reasonably familiar with the data editor. I had no idea what BW carrier micro really was - and subsequently was just buffing the numbers on the carrier to make it actually fun to play with (though I can't guarantee anything about real balance)
After seeing this thread, I think I finally know what people mean when they talk about BW carrier micro.
And I believe I have successfully created a decent work-around solution for target switching in the leash zone completely within the data editor (meaning that in principle, Blizzard could do this without any hardcoding changes).
-> search for the map named "Bizarro Carrier" on NA. I set it up with two planetary fortresses and 2 carriers for P1 to play around with (you can ignore all the other game changes - this is just about the carrier micro right now)
If anyone is wondering about how the standard carrier's weapon actually works - it's actually a relatively complex affair. It also uses utilizes a few opaque, hard-coded ability/effect types with relatively limited customization options. A lot of its particular behaviours can't be directly controlled. (for anyone else interested, the brood lord weapon is even more complicated than the carriers)
For example, if you've ever played Star Battles, you'll notice that you can't launch your interceptors while your ship is moving. As cool as it would be to launch on the move, you simply can't do it.
As far as I can tell, this is a limitation of the game engine itself. A unit cannot use two 'active' abilities at the same time.(eg. the medivac cannot Move and use Heal simultaneously)
I speculate that an incredibly elaborate trigger could handle it, but that's neither here nor there since Blizzard won't put triggers in their maps.
At this moment in the middle of the night, I haven't any solid idea how to mimic the continuous deployment.
Hey, nice work! I tried it out and the leash range targeting works perfectly. There was a weird glitch where if you move out of range and the interceptors return, an attack command causes the carriers to move toward the target until they reach the extent of leash range (12?) and then just sit there. Spamming attack or move commands doesn't fix it, you have to issue a stop command and then try attacking again, at which point the carriers will move to 8 range and launch interceptors.
On September 18 2012 01:57 czylu wrote: I don't think blizzard's bringing back Carrier micro because it was more bugging out the game and poor design that lead to its effectiveness. I'm sure rob pardo never intended the carrier to be used this way, and i'm sure if they tried to re-implement these mechanics into SC2, they would do it in a more obvious way that would make the carrier feel more natural and organic.
Does it matter if it was accidental the first time? If it made the game awesome, it should be intentionally incorporated into the next game's design imo.
To add an example to your point: muta-stacking. It was a bug in BW that they programmed into SC2.
Exactly. The only problem is they didn't go the full step and implement proper moving shot so we only half of what it is needed to make muta micro work. Another one of those things that don't effect newbs, but would allow pro's to demonstrate awesome skill.
I think moving carriers to prevent interceptors from docking is quite clearly a bug, and it does not really need to be re-implemented exactly like that. Maybe instead you could have "release interceptors" and "recall interceptors" buttons and they would heal upon docking.
Thanks Tyler for the great stuff and talking about the key concept: Trade Off.
What I don't get sometimes is that blizzard introduces units without any interesting features, be it a skill,cast etc. or a specific micro trick (muta micro, vulture micro, etc.). Of course, a unit could seem very (too) strong if you just look at it without context. But while heavily microing something you won't be able to do other stuff (at least there are limits to multitasking), so your enemy can exploit your "focus on micro".
I hope blizzard listens and implements those little features, because the viewers LOVE seeing pro micro. At least I'm enjoying it for the last decade.
On September 18 2012 01:57 czylu wrote: I don't think blizzard's bringing back Carrier micro because it was more bugging out the game and poor design that lead to its effectiveness. I'm sure rob pardo never intended the carrier to be used this way, and i'm sure if they tried to re-implement these mechanics into SC2, they would do it in a more obvious way that would make the carrier feel more natural and organic.
Cancelling moves in Street Fighter was a bug that allowed for combos.
Bugs that enhance gameplay are regularly promoted to features in games.
On September 18 2012 04:41 blabber wrote: where are all the sc2 new boys complaining about "bw elitists"
No one hates cool micro. We just don't like it when BW elitists take a massive dump on our game, sometimes even predicting that it will remain an eternal piece of shit and that we should all just go to BW because SC2 will never be as good as BW is. As for the topic at hand,
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
On September 18 2012 04:59 Ares[Effort] wrote: Really wish they would add this but I doubt it since they don't want to add something that requires some skill. They care about pleasing the casuals
Which is why we should drive the point home that for casuals nothing changes: they can still amove their carriers and lose them all.
On September 18 2012 04:59 Ares[Effort] wrote: Really wish they would add this but I doubt it since they don't want to add something that requires some skill. They care about pleasing the casuals
Which is why we should drive the point home that for casuals nothing changes: they can still amove their carriers and lose them all.
what blizzard doesn't want is this: a noob sees nony using carriers to their full potential. the noob tries it themselves and it doesn't work nearly as well as when nony does it. the noob gets frustrated and becomes depressed at how bad he is at starcraft
On September 18 2012 04:59 Ares[Effort] wrote: Really wish they would add this but I doubt it since they don't want to add something that requires some skill. They care about pleasing the casuals
Which is why we should drive the point home that for casuals nothing changes: they can still amove their carriers and lose them all.
well in fact you just said a thing and kinda the oposite. its because the units can be microed to be better that some units just fell weaks for the noobs. because blizzard have to balance the unit around the "best" possible human control. this make "noob" control a lot weaker.
what i mean is : if they don't had the micro trick, they can buff the carrier for everyone, if they do had it, it will be already considered a buff for the carrier (and would be at pro level) so the noobs will continue to have carriers that sucks.
i think its the problem blizzard is having for implementing microable units. Its cool to watch, its cool to use if you know hown its a pain for the noobs that got weaker units because of this.
One problem I still see with carriers is in PvZ. When a dozen corruptors come out they will still tear apart the carriers. But I understand in BW carriers in PvZ were non existent then too. So if carriers are made good for PvT it will still be fine. It would just be neat to solve their PvZ weakness too.
On September 18 2012 04:59 Ares[Effort] wrote: Really wish they would add this but I doubt it since they don't want to add something that requires some skill. They care about pleasing the casuals
Which is why we should drive the point home that for casuals nothing changes: they can still amove their carriers and lose them all.
what blizzard doesn't want is this: a noob sees nony using carriers to their full potential. the noob tries it themselves and it doesn't work nearly as well as when nony does it. the noob gets frustrated and becomes depressed at how bad he is at starcraft
Honestly, if you don't even attempt to put in the effort to get good at a competitive game before "becoming depressed" with that lack of skill, you should not be playing a competitive game. There are tons and tons of casual games out there that would satisfy such a person. I don't know why Blizzard thinks that's a good idea, why would you choose to cater to a wider, more casual audience when they will definitely not play the game as much, nor follow the proscene as much and will eventually get bored when the new flavour of the month comes out. Which would be all fine and dandy for Blizzard had they not intended to make it a long-lasting eSport with two expansions.
Off-topics aside, this video is very well-made for its purpose. I agree whole-heartedly and believe that this is exactly what we need; units that are okay at a lower level but with the potential of an effectiveness that is orders of magnitude higher, provided you have the ability to control it to that extent; units completely opposite to the Roach, Colossus, Marauder, Corruptor, Warhound.
I support this endeavour and I hope Blizzard wakes up and realizes we don't want them to re-port Brood War, we just want an exciting game with a comparable depth.
I would LOVE to see the old BW mechanics of carriers back in SC2. I would seriously consider playing SC2 again just for that. You could try this a 100 times and everytime find something different and new about it, decision tweaks here and there, on a knife's edge at all times, cause if you miss your micro once, you start back from square one, or take some significant main body dmg. The problem I see would be that as someone mentioned before blizzard seems to want to please the masses with this game. If the game were to be balanced with carrier's microability(if that's a word), then protoss' lategame without that microability would be significantly weaker than other races. But if you balanced it for the masses, ie balanced the lategame assuming people won't be able to micro the carriers and be able to macro/micro other things at the same time, then protoss would be completely overpowered in the lategame at the pro level. In essence, I love the idea, but to implement this other races would have to have some addition where high level of micro would make significant differences in the efficiency of certain units. So that at the lower levels, since both sides can't micro well, the game is still balanced, while at the highest levels, either both sides micro well and it's an epic game on a knife's edge for extended period of time that the "casual" player has a hard time coping, or one side edges out cause they had the better micro.
On September 18 2012 01:57 czylu wrote: I don't think blizzard's bringing back Carrier micro because it was more bugging out the game and poor design that lead to its effectiveness. I'm sure rob pardo never intended the carrier to be used this way, and i'm sure if they tried to re-implement these mechanics into SC2, they would do it in a more obvious way that would make the carrier feel more natural and organic.
Does it matter if it was accidental the first time? If it made the game awesome, it should be intentionally incorporated into the next game's design imo.
To add an example to your point: muta-stacking. It was a bug in BW that they programmed into SC2.
Exactly. The only problem is they didn't go the full step and implement proper moving shot so we only half of what it is needed to make muta micro work. Another one of those things that don't effect newbs, but would allow pro's to demonstrate awesome skill.
I think the Tribes franchise is a fantastic example of this. Skiing was a bug in the first game, but it was so unique and lent itself to such awesome gameplay, that it became one of the core features of Tribes.
Can anyone imagine if, instead, the bug had been fixed in Tribes 2? That would have been insane! But I feel like that is almost what has happened in StarCraft 2.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
I think that's a little unfair. If this thread is any indication, there have been sudden revelatory 'aha' moments for several people. And this is after a couple years of people trying to explain how carrier micro works and getting dismissed as 'elitists.' What it took was a very concise compare/contrast video demonstration by Tyler. If that can happen with people on this thread, there's no reason why it can't happen with Blizzard.
this was surprisingly insightful, as someone who didn't play toss in bw (and played at the lowest of levels) I only knew that it was different. This video does a great job highlighting the ways the carrier was great and could be great again.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
I think that's a little unfair. If this thread is any indication, there have been sudden revelatory 'aha' moments for several people. And this is after a couple years of people trying to explain how carrier micro works and getting dismissed as 'elitists.' What it took was a very concise compare/contrast video demonstration by Tyler. If that can happen with people on this thread, there's no reason why it can't happen with Blizzard.
Exactly. I'm not going to lie I watched Broodwar for about 4 years and played for 2. I played Terran and I had no idea that's what carrier micro was and how they were doing it. I just thought Carriers did that stuff anyways, seems they didn't o_O
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
I think that's a little unfair. If this thread is any indication, there have been sudden revelatory 'aha' moments for several people. And this is after a couple years of people trying to explain how carrier micro works and getting dismissed as 'elitists.' What it took was a very concise compare/contrast video demonstration by Tyler. If that can happen with people on this thread, there's no reason why it can't happen with Blizzard.
Well it's far easier to listen to and understand the point of view of someone when that person is a professional player, winner of a TSL and well-respected community figure, as opposed to some random faceless poster on the internet with a different opinion than yours.
But because they are professional players, I wager they spend more time practicing and trying to understand the game better than they do posting here or making informational videos; this is unfortunate but necessary for careers after all. I do think however that we would be making progress a lot faster if players such as Tyler, MorroW and LaLuSh helped the newer members of the community (and to a lesser extent Blizzard) understand what exactly could be done to improve the game and why that would be the case; that information would then help the community pressure Blizzard more into at least trying said features. (note I only named those players because they stick out to me the most in terms of sharing their opinions on the game when they do post) But, as I said, it's not really their job to do so.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
I think that's a little unfair. If this thread is any indication, there have been sudden revelatory 'aha' moments for several people. And this is after a couple years of people trying to explain how carrier micro works and getting dismissed as 'elitists.' What it took was a very concise compare/contrast video demonstration by Tyler. If that can happen with people on this thread, there's no reason why it can't happen with Blizzard.
Exactly. I'm not going to lie I watched Broodwar for about 4 years and played for 2. I played Terran and I had no idea that's what carrier micro was and how they were doing it. I just thought Carriers did that stuff anyways, seems they didn't o_O
Similar position here. As a zerg player, didn't know the full intricacies of carrier micro in BW although Tyler was right when he said 'fans appreciate the micro'. I remember watching Stork's surprise carriers tear up Flash on Heartbreak Ridge. They just wouldn't die!
I'd be surprised if this was common knowledge in the SC2 development team at all.
And sadly, even if it was, I don't think they'd implement it. Just look at their general design philosophy: 1) take out high control units. 2) make everything attack move friendly.
Anyway, very nice video. Maybe somebody will watch it and sees the light. At worst, it reminds us all of the pinnacle of game desight that was BW.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
Why does everybody hate on Browder and Blizzard in threads like these? Blizzard gains nothing by making a fundamentally competitive game casual friendly, so that doesn't work. Browder has no reason to make a bad game, and he IS a high up in Blizzard, so he has at least an above average brain. That means that he makes non-retarded decisions based on the knowledge he has on hand at the time of the decision being made. Cool down for a bit and seriously put yourself in his shoes before you judge him so harshly. Most of us, in his place in his experiences, would have made a lot of the same decisions.
On September 18 2012 04:59 Ares[Effort] wrote: Really wish they would add this but I doubt it since they don't want to add something that requires some skill. They care about pleasing the casuals
Which is why we should drive the point home that for casuals nothing changes: they can still amove their carriers and lose them all.
what blizzard doesn't want is this: a noob sees nony using carriers to their full potential. the noob tries it themselves and it doesn't work nearly as well as when nony does it. the noob gets frustrated and becomes depressed at how bad he is at starcraft
When they say casual I don't think they mean the casual e-sports spectator, whom are aware of how good pro-gamers are and can appreciate their skill.
On September 18 2012 04:59 Ares[Effort] wrote: Really wish they would add this but I doubt it since they don't want to add something that requires some skill. They care about pleasing the casuals
Which is why we should drive the point home that for casuals nothing changes: they can still amove their carriers and lose them all.
well in fact you just said a thing and kinda the oposite. its because the units can be microed to be better that some units just fell weaks for the noobs. because blizzard have to balance the unit around the "best" possible human control. this make "noob" control a lot weaker.
what i mean is : if they don't had the micro trick, they can buff the carrier for everyone, if they do had it, it will be already considered a buff for the carrier (and would be at pro level) so the noobs will continue to have carriers that sucks.
i think its the problem blizzard is having for implementing microable units. Its cool to watch, its cool to use if you know hown its a pain for the noobs that got weaker units because of this.
The casual isn't fighting high level players who will punish a protoss using balanced carriers for controlling them poorly. I'm pretty sure at whatever league they're at, a-moving is just fine. I'm merely mocking Blizzard's statement. As for carriers that "suck" at the non-pro level, they're pretty viable in the low leagues. Actually, just about anything is. Carriers only fall off entirely in high level play.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
Why does everybody hate on Browder and Blizzard in threads like these? Blizzard gains nothing by making a fundamentally competitive game casual friendly, so that doesn't work. Browder has no reason to make a bad game, and he IS a high up in Blizzard, so he has at least an above average brain. That means that he makes non-retarded decisions based on the knowledge he has on hand at the time of the decision being made. Cool down for a bit and seriously put yourself in his shoes before you judge him so harshly. Most of us, in his place in his experiences, would have made a lot of the same decisions.
Except some of us recall Capcom making the completely opposite decision from Blizzard when combos were discovered in Street Fighter. In fact, without combos, the fighting game genre would have died out a long time ago.
edit: I'm highly disappointed in Browder's response. The new units introduced in BW, for the most part, were only used in certain very specific match-ups. What made the expansion great is the amount of changes they made to the old units. Trying to fit in the new units without considering drastic changes to old units is a big mistake. They need to start doing it while there is still time to make drastic changes to old units, not just simple numbers tweaking.
On September 18 2012 01:58 p1cKLes wrote: I would love to hear more of this type of stuff from pros that played BW. This is the type of stuff that we need in order to make HotS really good.
Preferably in youtube format that developers can easily understand.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
DB butthurt level: 9001
Well that's expected. HOTS feels to be trying to revolutionise Zerg while keeping Protoss the same, with them refusing to consider changes to warp ins and forcefields. I just hope they actually manage to bring it in for LOTV, and also hope for them to have a "save the carrier" campaign in there.
As much as petulant TLers like to whine about Browder and Kim not reading or listening, I know for a fact they follow these forums fairly avidly. An excellent, non-inflammatory post from a respected member of the community like Tyler should prove helpful in getting the proposed changes integrated.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
I think that's a little unfair. If this thread is any indication, there have been sudden revelatory 'aha' moments for several people. And this is after a couple years of people trying to explain how carrier micro works and getting dismissed as 'elitists.' What it took was a very concise compare/contrast video demonstration by Tyler. If that can happen with people on this thread, there's no reason why it can't happen with Blizzard.
Exactly, the dismissive, aggressive nature of the posts were always frustrating. Also the BW enthusiasts are sometimes just stark raving fucking mad. Yes skill is important but there comes a point where compromise is insane. Liimiting how many units you can select or buildings is just nuts for example. Yet I saw people push for that and they wondered why the new people hated the idea.
Also, I for one fucking love command queueing. I wish it was a bit smarter for warp prism drops but you can't win them all.
EDIT: and the video really clinches it and puts it in simple terms for people to understand, makes a world of difference. That goes for any software development / bug reports etc.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
I'm glad he's acknowledged the thread but it's probably at such a size that they 'have to' address it. I just wonder if they /actually get it/ as to why this kind of weird shit is awesome. I don't know about most people here on TL but I'm personally quite skillless, I just want this shit for better pro matches I watch.
There was also a great tension if the Terran player decided to employ ghosts against carriers (or arbiters, or especially both). As lockdown's range is 8, you have to get pretty close, and with the ghost being as weak as it is, you definitely want to hide them from being stasised or just stabbed by zealots/DTs. Or psi-stormed. But it's a case where if you choose to use that tech, you'll be rewarded by how good your control is even as you and your opponent have an arms race as your control gets better and better. You can be good at controlling the SC2 carrier, but you max out the unit's potential a lot easier.
It saddens me that I actually completely forgot about the second micro mechanic (interceptors not fully returning to moving carriers). Two and a half years of s2 is a long time.
Great video Tyler, thanks for this post! It will probably won't even have to be nerfed since it's single target burst damage, and the OPness of direct ports from bw to sc2 mostly revolves around splash damage. I hope Blizzard implements this, it might "save" the unit in and on itself. If it still sees too little play one could think about proposed changes like making interceptors free and so on.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
A bit dissapointting but hopefully it'll eventually happen.
Wait what, there are Carriers in SC2? I don't think I ever seen any. May as well be a new HoTs unit for all the use its got so far :3
And yah, great video. Was frustrating to hear they were considering removing the Carrier when they hadn't really given it a good showing. Carriers and Arbiters were the reason I played Protoss in BW...I play Zerg in SC2.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
A bit dissapointting but hopefully it'll eventually happen.
I'm not sure I like their ideas there. I understand they have to balance the new units, but how can they balance them if they're not working in synergy with the older units?
Carriers are like the core airtoss unit, without them working properly, how can they even begin to buff/nerf the tempest?
Dustin Browder is proving, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. It would probably take them less than a day to get this in the game if they made a real effort. But they want a narrow-minded focus on new units, which obviously neglects that old units will also be used in the expansion. Focusing on fixing old units isn't trivial. The real problem is, the Carrier should've been fixed two years ago. Everything seems to take ages at Blizzard. For instance, there seems to be very little new art or UI improvements. When you contrast this with Valve's work on Dota2 and the pace they're going at, it leads me to think there are some serious inefficiencies in Blizzard's process
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
I think that's a little unfair. If this thread is any indication, there have been sudden revelatory 'aha' moments for several people. And this is after a couple years of people trying to explain how carrier micro works and getting dismissed as 'elitists.' What it took was a very concise compare/contrast video demonstration by Tyler. If that can happen with people on this thread, there's no reason why it can't happen with Blizzard.
Exactly, the dismissive, aggressive nature of the posts were always frustrating. Also the BW enthusiasts are sometimes just stark raving fucking mad. Yes skill is important but there comes a point where compromise is insane.
I don't understand - compromise between skill and what else exactly?
Liimiting how many units you can select or buildings is just nuts for example. Yet I saw people push for that and they wondered why the new people hated the idea.
And yet every design team that worked on a Blizzard RTS pre-Browder & co has made a conscious design decision to keep the limit on control groups. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that could vouch for their sanity.
yup. focusing on fitting new units into an existing, screwed up balance environment is a retarded idea. You can't practice specific design at this stage, you have to be holistic and tweak a load of things at the same time to encourage a 'kind' of gameplay.
Once that kind of gameplay is established THEN you can make little individual tweaks here and there to balance that gameplay/meta. Changing carriers from situational A move units to legitimate units is not a 'minor tweak', and if they adjust them as such they'll need to go back and re-tune everything from the mothership core to the tempest due to the ripples that will cause. Best do it now, not later.
To make Interceptors mimic the BW AI - Go to Unit Tab > Interceptors > Combat Tab > Set the "Default Acquire Level" to "Offensive" instead of None.
Then click on the Carrier - Set the "Minimum Scan Range" to 16. Finally go to the rightmost tab on the weapon, and under "Target Sorts" add "TSPriority" (make sure TSPriority is the topmost one) and "TSDistance" (this makes it so the Interceptors automatically go after anything that is attacking, then if there are the same, they go after the nearest target) (Overall what the changes do is make the Interceptors automatically attack every enemy within 16 range. That also means that as long as there are enemies present, the Interceptors will never return to the Carrier unless you move out of the "16 leash" range distance or you press stop.)
There you go. Carrier Brood War style!
Additionally, if you want to keep SC2 Interceptor AI but allow an upgrade that upgrades the Interceptor into BW AI + Show Spoiler +
First give the Interceptors a behavior that has "Passive Flag" on it "after" the above changes are made (give the behavior to the interceptor of course). Passive makes it so the interceptors won't auto acquire (it will still attack anything the Carrier attacks; again this should be done after the above changes).
Once the upgrade is researched, you could have a validator disable the buff and thus enabling BW Interceptor AI for the Carrier. You'd need a Validator that checks if an upgrade is "not" researched.
So - make a requirement that has "this upgrade is complete" under "use", make a Validator that does "not" have "Find" check and make it target that requirement, then add that Validator under "Disable" to the Behavior with the passive flag on it, finally add the behavior to the interceptor.
As for Interceptors not returning while Carrier is moving? Hmm this one is a bit tricky. One idea I can think of is while the Carrier is moving at 70% speed or higher for 5 seconds [after 5 seconds past, the behavior removes itself and applies another behavior that only remains active while the carrier is moving] using a behavior that checks to see if validator is present (Carriers slowly accelerate and deaccelerate to and from their max speed), they get a buff which disables the Intercept effect that has delay, and enables another effect that has Carrier launching interceptors with no delay.
That's really similar.
Also, you can make interceptors regenerate health in the cargo too by making it so a behavior is added to interceptors that grants regen while interceptors are in cargo.
This works similar to the bunker (bunkers actually adds a behavior that grants +1 range when units are in the cargo).
On September 18 2012 07:55 Goldfish wrote: To make Interceptors mimic the BW AI - Go to Unit Tab > Interceptors > Combat Tab > Set the "Default Acquire Level" to "Offensive" instead of None.
Then click on the Carrier - Set the "Minimum Scan Range" to 16. Finally go to the rightmost tab on the weapon, and under "Target Sorts" add "TSPriority" (make sure TSPriority is the topmost one) and "TSDistance" (this makes it so the Interceptors automatically go after anything that is attacking, then if there are the same, they go after the nearest target) (Overall what the changes do is make the Interceptors automatically attack every enemy within 16 range. That also means that as long as there are enemies present, the Interceptors will never return to the Carrier unless you move out of the "16 leash" range distance or you press stop.)
There you go. Carrier Brood War style!
Additionally, if you want to keep SC2 Interceptor AI but allow an upgrade that upgrades the Interceptor into BW AI + Show Spoiler +
First give the Interceptors a behavior that has "Passive Flag" on it "after" the above changes are made (give the behavior to the interceptor of course). Passive makes it so the interceptors won't auto acquire (it will still attack anything the Carrier attacks; again this should be done after the above changes).
Once the upgrade is researched, you could have a validator disable the buff and thus enabling BW Interceptor AI for the Carrier. You'd need a Validator that checks if an upgrade is "not" researched.
So - make a requirement that has "this upgrade is complete" under "use", make a Validator that does "not" have "Find" check and make it target that requirement, then add that Validator under "Disable" to the Behavior with the passive flag on it, finally add the behavior to the interceptor.
As for Interceptors not returning while Carrier is moving? Hmm this one is a bit tricky. One idea I can think of is while the Carrier is moving at 70% speed or higher for 5 seconds [after 5 seconds past, the behavior removes itself and applies another behavior that only remains active while the carrier is moving] using a behavior that checks to see if validator is present (Carriers slowly accelerate and deaccelerate to and from their max speed), they get a buff which disables the Intercept effect that has delay, and enables another effect that has Carrier launching interceptors with no delay.
That's really similar.
Also, you can make interceptors regenerate health in the cargo too by making it so a behavior is added to interceptors that grants regen while interceptors are in cargo.
This works similar to the bunker (bunkers actually adds a behavior that grants +1 range when units are in the cargo).
Smart stuff. But I don't think implementation is the tricky part, convincing Browder is.
While I don't mind waiting a couple of weeks to see the change happening, Powder's statement on "we need to know what the carrier will be doing first" is totally unacceptable. Whatever the carrier will be doing, it should get this change, it's that simple and that important. We don't want to even know what the current Carrier will be doing, we only want to know what the modified one will be doing. Moreover, tweaking the new units should be done around this new modified carrier not the current one. Following this route might introduce the need to tweak the new units twice, once around the current carrier and then around the new one.
Please someone put this on the battle.net forums in the relevant thread, I don't have a character on NA.
On September 18 2012 08:17 gh0un wrote: Dustin demonstrates once again that he just doesnt get it. Why is such an incompetent guy even employed at blizzard escapes my mind.
Here's a frightening thought: what if he's the smartest guy in the room
On September 18 2012 08:17 gh0un wrote: Dustin demonstrates once again that he just doesnt get it. Why is such an incompetent guy even employed at blizzard escapes my mind.
Here's a frightening thought: what if he's the smartest guy in the room
On September 18 2012 08:17 gh0un wrote: Dustin demonstrates once again that he just doesnt get it. Why is such an incompetent guy even employed at blizzard escapes my mind.
Agreed. After watching David Kim and Dustin Browder's interview, I was shocked at alot of their responses...it just didn't seem like they knew alot about competitive play or paid much attention to community feedback. I get they want to assess community feedback and game ideas slowly, but what SERIOUS reason do they have for not remodeling the way the carrier attacks? This is especially obnoxious because the game is in beta right now, and it's a PERFECT time to implement it!
On September 18 2012 08:17 gh0un wrote: Dustin demonstrates once again that he just doesnt get it. Why is such an incompetent guy even employed at blizzard escapes my mind.
Agreed. After watching David Kim and Dustin Browder's interview, I was shocked at alot of their responses...it just didn't seem like they knew alot about competitive play or paid much attention to community feedback. I get they want to assess community feedback and game ideas slowly, but what SERIOUS reason do they have for not remodeling the way the carrier attacks? This is especially obnoxious because the game is in beta right now, and it's a PERFECT time to implement it!
I was very glad when I saw the latest HOTS patch notes and thought that with the return of the carrier they had also decided to put some thought into how they could make it work. It seems like that was not the case, which is unfortunate.
hmm why cant they just see this carrier change as something similar to what they are doing to the hydra? Browders question of "what will happen now that weve introduced the new units" can be answered by anyone here : the carriers' still not going to get used, and why would it? (and no, that situation where you have half the map against zerg doesnt count) Which unit of the new units actually promotes the carrier of being taken back from under the dust?
Bit disappointed, but atleast we know they are aware of it. If they'd make the change later id still be glad, but if they didnt id like a good reason for it.
I just despise the fact that it is up to Blizzard to feed us information of what to do with the newly arrival of units. Come on man, we are NOT some 5 years old that follows set of instructions, we are perfectly capable of identifying the units and perform innovative tasks with it.
Give us something cool, and we'll work around. Don't give us a mundane unit and instruct us its functions.
I tried implementing Goldfish's method, but unless I did it wrong, I don't think this brings back BW micro.
In fact, what this does is automize the re-targeting of interceptors onto new targets after the main target dies while you're in leash range. So, the carrier doesn't need to enter range 8 to retarget things to keep attacking at range 12 (that is to say, no micro needed).
Ironically, if you do go and manually try to give an attack order while in leash range, the carrier will move back to range 8 in order to change targets. So, it's actually more effective to not micro your carriers.
As for the interceptors staying external while the carrier is moving, I'm not sure it can be done with the data editor. The ability that controls the 'fires them one at a time' or the 'interceptors appear all at once at the target' behaviour is actually the same ability that controls the leashing and building of the interceptors themselves.
Because you can't dynamically change that value, to change between those types of behaviours seems to require having 2 separate hangars. At best, you'd have 2 sets of 8 interceptors, but only able to employ either set at any one time (not sure how to get that working yet). But then you'll also be able to lose one set, but continue firing with the other. Which would be odd if you're only supposed to actually have 8 interceptors.
As for the bunker-like buff to heal, it's actually the load command itself that confers the buff to the unit. But the carrier doesn't use a load command - it uses a special 'arm magazine' type ability to recall and leash units. I don't actually know if there's a validator type to check for 'in magazine' status. The game might not even recognize the units as 'in' the carrier - rather, they're actually just sitting there by the carrier (normally hidden inside of the carrier's model, but floating there nonetheless).
So, the implemenation I think would still be pretty tricky. One should not underestimate the hard limitations of the data editor concerning this opaque ability. Maybe ask SoulFilcher, MavercK, Xenox, etc. to chime in with any ideas.
tl;dr: Even if this was possible, all of this is moot if DB doesn't implement the changes or tweak the game engine. Argue eloquently TL and fight for the carrier we all want!
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
A bit dissapointting but hopefully it'll eventually happen.
I'm not nearly so hopeful. To me this is the thin wedge of a whole slew of changes to unit microbility that needs to come through. If they are balking at this, I'm afraid it's going to get blunted or deflected just like the whole Phoenix thing.
Haha, I found my old post from one of the Phoenix movement thread. I was firmly in the 'wait and see' camp back then.
On May 07 2010 15:38 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I am just glad that blizzard does not listen to 90% of this community. Come on, as much as I like teamliquid.net, there are so many stupid kids on this board who read some patch lines and just go insult blizzard. what are you guys thinking? first of all, I think blizzard puts a lot of time and effort into improving their game, and they are not only looking on tl.net and their wishes but also on many other communities on this planet. they just won't make changes on this game without reasons and having discussed them and just wait for what is gonna happen. of course there will be bad changes which will be rechanged again but you have to give them time. your opinion is not the general opinion. in broodwar you could say "hey omfg look there are almost no terran players in top20 TSL2 terran is obviously imba!!!" but then have a look at korea and not only at the pro scene... blizzard makes mistakes ... yes, but they do not want to make your beloved game but want to improve it AND want to make money out of it (yes this is actually true so the game has to be somewhat attractive for newbies as well). discuss what you think is bad but you don't have to go like "omfg bunch of faggots have no clue how game programming works"
Very much this. It's beta so changes should be sought. On the otherhand there is always this huge freak out based on patch notes as though it's the final patch for eternity. It's beta. Play the bloody game and see how it works. And then makes some noise for change. But you won't be an advocate for any form of change with the 'wtf is blizzard thinking' 5 min after patch notes because it's gut-reaction ignorance.
If people don't see the changes to the Phoenix as listening to the community, then your blinding yourself. Sure they didn't implement it BW style, but they needn't implement it at all. The fact that any form of moving shot is here shows they're listening. Maybe it'll get tweaked even further- although I doubt we'll get the Chinese triangle or anything that complicated.
...how wrong I was
Unfortunately, that one change on the Phoenix was all Blizzard ever did and never touched it again. Never even tried a proper version of moving shot on any other unit. I understand why they want to make conservative changes, but last beta those conservative changes pretty much resulted in no change on the microbility front.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
A bit dissapointting but hopefully it'll eventually happen.
I'm not nearly so hopeful. To me this is the thin wedge of a whole slew of changes to unit microbility that needs to come through. If they are balking at this, I'm afraid it's going to get blunted or deflected just like the whole Phoenix thing.
Haha, I found my old post from one of the Phoenix movement thread. I was firmly in the 'wait and see' camp back then.
On May 07 2010 15:38 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I am just glad that blizzard does not listen to 90% of this community. Come on, as much as I like teamliquid.net, there are so many stupid kids on this board who read some patch lines and just go insult blizzard. what are you guys thinking? first of all, I think blizzard puts a lot of time and effort into improving their game, and they are not only looking on tl.net and their wishes but also on many other communities on this planet. they just won't make changes on this game without reasons and having discussed them and just wait for what is gonna happen. of course there will be bad changes which will be rechanged again but you have to give them time. your opinion is not the general opinion. in broodwar you could say "hey omfg look there are almost no terran players in top20 TSL2 terran is obviously imba!!!" but then have a look at korea and not only at the pro scene... blizzard makes mistakes ... yes, but they do not want to make your beloved game but want to improve it AND want to make money out of it (yes this is actually true so the game has to be somewhat attractive for newbies as well). discuss what you think is bad but you don't have to go like "omfg bunch of faggots have no clue how game programming works"
Very much this. It's beta so changes should be sought. On the otherhand there is always this huge freak out based on patch notes as though it's the final patch for eternity. It's beta. Play the bloody game and see how it works. And then makes some noise for change. But you won't be an advocate for any form of change with the 'wtf is blizzard thinking' 5 min after patch notes because it's gut-reaction ignorance.
If people don't see the changes to the Phoenix as listening to the community, then your blinding yourself. Sure they didn't implement it BW style, but they needn't implement it at all. The fact that any form of moving shot is here shows they're listening. Maybe it'll get tweaked even further- although I doubt we'll get the Chinese triangle or anything that complicated.
...how wrong I was
Unfortunately, that one change on the Phoenix was all Blizzard ever did and never touched it again. Never even tried a proper version of moving shot on any other unit. I understand why they want to make conservative changes, but last beta those conservative changes pretty much resulted in no change on the microbility front.
The difference now is that we have a pros-only BNet forum, which the dev team (seems like anyways) are taking seriously. What we need is the pro players, like Nony, to push for this change.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
While I am sure that we have a couple months if not more of Beta, Blizzard will get to the carrier. I really like though how Dustin Browder made a list of units people are talking about and forgets the Colossus, Only 3-4 threads on changing/removing it on TL alone.
I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
A bit dissapointting but hopefully it'll eventually happen.
I'm not nearly so hopeful. To me this is the thin wedge of a whole slew of changes to unit microbility that needs to come through. If they are balking at this, I'm afraid it's going to get blunted or deflected just like the whole Phoenix thing.
Haha, I found my old post from one of the Phoenix movement thread. I was firmly in the 'wait and see' camp back then.
On May 07 2010 15:38 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I am just glad that blizzard does not listen to 90% of this community. Come on, as much as I like teamliquid.net, there are so many stupid kids on this board who read some patch lines and just go insult blizzard. what are you guys thinking? first of all, I think blizzard puts a lot of time and effort into improving their game, and they are not only looking on tl.net and their wishes but also on many other communities on this planet. they just won't make changes on this game without reasons and having discussed them and just wait for what is gonna happen. of course there will be bad changes which will be rechanged again but you have to give them time. your opinion is not the general opinion. in broodwar you could say "hey omfg look there are almost no terran players in top20 TSL2 terran is obviously imba!!!" but then have a look at korea and not only at the pro scene... blizzard makes mistakes ... yes, but they do not want to make your beloved game but want to improve it AND want to make money out of it (yes this is actually true so the game has to be somewhat attractive for newbies as well). discuss what you think is bad but you don't have to go like "omfg bunch of faggots have no clue how game programming works"
Very much this. It's beta so changes should be sought. On the otherhand there is always this huge freak out based on patch notes as though it's the final patch for eternity. It's beta. Play the bloody game and see how it works. And then makes some noise for change. But you won't be an advocate for any form of change with the 'wtf is blizzard thinking' 5 min after patch notes because it's gut-reaction ignorance.
If people don't see the changes to the Phoenix as listening to the community, then your blinding yourself. Sure they didn't implement it BW style, but they needn't implement it at all. The fact that any form of moving shot is here shows they're listening. Maybe it'll get tweaked even further- although I doubt we'll get the Chinese triangle or anything that complicated.
...how wrong I was
Unfortunately, that one change on the Phoenix was all Blizzard ever did and never touched it again. Never even tried a proper version of moving shot on any other unit. I understand why they want to make conservative changes, but last beta those conservative changes pretty much resulted in no change on the microbility front.
I am sorry, I wasn't in the forum at that time but what is wrong with phoenix movement? currently the phoenix is one of the best SC2 units, both for the player and the viewer, so you can not say that they did a bad job with that one.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
But why would limit the pro's when it doesn't effect lower level players? Here's the thing, with auto-match making, if Protoss start getting wins using Carrier micro... they get promoted and leave behind people that can't be bothered to learn it or deal with it. But it's not even a terribly hard thing to figure out that only the select few can know the secret. The tricky part is doing carrier micro while doing everything else like macro. Guarantee Masters and above would be trying it. Actually, any player that sees pro's doing it in a match will probably at least try it once. It's something that's inspires imitation even if a lesser player can only try it on occaison.
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
Carrier
Thor
Void Ray
Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
A bit dissapointting but hopefully it'll eventually happen.
I'm not nearly so hopeful. To me this is the thin wedge of a whole slew of changes to unit microbility that needs to come through. If they are balking at this, I'm afraid it's going to get blunted or deflected just like the whole Phoenix thing.
Haha, I found my old post from one of the Phoenix movement thread. I was firmly in the 'wait and see' camp back then.
On May 07 2010 17:36 Falling wrote:
On May 07 2010 15:38 MapleLeafSirup wrote: I am just glad that blizzard does not listen to 90% of this community. Come on, as much as I like teamliquid.net, there are so many stupid kids on this board who read some patch lines and just go insult blizzard. what are you guys thinking? first of all, I think blizzard puts a lot of time and effort into improving their game, and they are not only looking on tl.net and their wishes but also on many other communities on this planet. they just won't make changes on this game without reasons and having discussed them and just wait for what is gonna happen. of course there will be bad changes which will be rechanged again but you have to give them time. your opinion is not the general opinion. in broodwar you could say "hey omfg look there are almost no terran players in top20 TSL2 terran is obviously imba!!!" but then have a look at korea and not only at the pro scene... blizzard makes mistakes ... yes, but they do not want to make your beloved game but want to improve it AND want to make money out of it (yes this is actually true so the game has to be somewhat attractive for newbies as well). discuss what you think is bad but you don't have to go like "omfg bunch of faggots have no clue how game programming works"
Very much this. It's beta so changes should be sought. On the otherhand there is always this huge freak out based on patch notes as though it's the final patch for eternity. It's beta. Play the bloody game and see how it works. And then makes some noise for change. But you won't be an advocate for any form of change with the 'wtf is blizzard thinking' 5 min after patch notes because it's gut-reaction ignorance.
If people don't see the changes to the Phoenix as listening to the community, then your blinding yourself. Sure they didn't implement it BW style, but they needn't implement it at all. The fact that any form of moving shot is here shows they're listening. Maybe it'll get tweaked even further- although I doubt we'll get the Chinese triangle or anything that complicated.
...how wrong I was
Unfortunately, that one change on the Phoenix was all Blizzard ever did and never touched it again. Never even tried a proper version of moving shot on any other unit. I understand why they want to make conservative changes, but last beta those conservative changes pretty much resulted in no change on the microbility front.
I am sorry, I wasn't in the forum at that time but what is wrong with phoenix movement? currently the phoenix is one of the best SC2 units, both for the player and the viewer, so you can not say that they did a bad job with that one.
Lalush is better at explaining it than I. Basically the Phoenix still glides in the same direction as it was pointing, the only difference now is that it rotates on it's axis to fire backwards while gliding in the same direction. True moving shot was about firing off a shot, while avoiding decelleration. However, rather than gliding, in the same direction, the unit would actually switch directions after firing burst shot. This would allow rapid, hit and run tactics that were very precise and kept up a constant speed.
This video explains how moving shot works on the vulture, but the same was true for the mutalisk (using hold position) and a variety of other units + Show Spoiler +
In essence, the Phoenix was only a partial fix that missed the point what made moving position awesome. You can tell Blizzard missed it because when asked about the Phoenix change, the foreigner pro's just laughed.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
But why would limit the pro's when it doesn't effect lower level players? Here's the thing, with auto-match making, if Protoss start getting wins using Carrier micro... they get promoted and leave behind people that can't be bothered to learn it or deal with it. But it's not even a terribly hard thing to figure out that only the select few can know the secret. The tricky part is doing carrier micro while doing everything else like macro. Guarantee Masters and above would be trying it. Actually, any player that sees pro's doing it in a match will probably at least try it once. It's something that's inspires imitation even if a lesser player can only try it on occaison.
Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
You do realize we're living in age where information is distributed really, really fast. These sort of things would not be these carefully guarded secrets. I joined BW very late and I'm aware of most of the BW micro tricks. I'm rubbish at pretty much all of them, but I'm well aware of them.
On September 18 2012 10:29 playa wrote: Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
But it is accessible to everyone. It's just a matter of learning. Do you take out backwards skating out of hockey because some people don't want to learn? It's there if you want to, but if you just want to play casual, pond hockey you can be perfectly happy skating forwards and never backwards. These will not be deep, dark secrets. They'll be widely available to everyone... just like Marine splitting. But not everyone is MKP. Do we get rid of the marine split because not everyone can hack it? It's always there waiting, something to aspire to.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
I think that's a little unfair. If this thread is any indication, there have been sudden revelatory 'aha' moments for several people. And this is after a couple years of people trying to explain how carrier micro works and getting dismissed as 'elitists.' What it took was a very concise compare/contrast video demonstration by Tyler. If that can happen with people on this thread, there's no reason why it can't happen with Blizzard.
Well it's far easier to listen to and understand the point of view of someone when that person is a professional player, winner of a TSL and well-respected community figure, as opposed to some random faceless poster on the internet with a different opinion than yours.
But because they are professional players, I wager they spend more time practicing and trying to understand the game better than they do posting here or making informational videos; this is unfortunate but necessary for careers after all. I do think however that we would be making progress a lot faster if players such as Tyler, MorroW and LaLuSh helped the newer members of the community (and to a lesser extent Blizzard) understand what exactly could be done to improve the game and why that would be the case; that information would then help the community pressure Blizzard more into at least trying said features. (note I only named those players because they stick out to me the most in terms of sharing their opinions on the game when they do post) But, as I said, it's not really their job to do so.
:/
It should not be necessary to need a good player like Tyler to make you even listen and try to sympathize with a persons opinions about what made Broodwar so great, especially when literally a whole community says the same thing. The problem is, it's just too many people who won't look at SC2 with critical eyes and address the bad things about it. Instead, many in this community scream 'elitist' or 'nostalgia' as soon as someone from Broodwar days criticizes something about SC2 in a sensible way. If I was new to the SC2-scene and Teamliquid, and had never played Broodwar before, I would be curious and check things out why all these people all the time talk about Broodwar and why it's such an amazing game. That's what happened when I discovered the Super smash scene, and discovered Melee through Brawl.
My personal beliefs when it comes to make something as good as possible, looking at your work with a critical perspective is very very important, instead of just pushing problems under the bed. I remember once when I coded a computer program in about two weeks, and sent it over to my friend to review the code for me. As a person who cares much about details, as I do, he found quite many things that he thought was bad and should be changed; not everything was a huge issue, but some things were. First I was surprised about all the things he found out, and afterwards I got a bit upset about it, because at first I thought I did the most amazing work ever(^_^). And it was not like I was upset just because the fact that he disagreed about some decisions in my code, then I would argue otherwise, but it was that I thought he was right, and I agreed on his opinions; with other words, ego drop. Soon after I realized how important his critical review was for me to become a better programmer, and now I'm very thankful for him to be honest about what he really thinks about my work. It may be obvious that being critical about the things you do or care about will improve that, but I still think it's still a huge underestimation by most people(including myself). It's simply easy not to look at the problems, but you have to if you want to solve them.
I also think it's kind of sad that many SC2 players and casters from the Broodwar days won't admit problems in SC2 because it hurts their reputation somewhat in the SC2 community. But if you truly care about the game, you really should be honest and tell what you think about it, to make it as good game as possible, and make it live up to the success of Broodwar, instead of caring about everything that goes around the game(money, big community and eSports). I think that's kind of shallow, and I think the eSport scene becomes better and more real when the game is really good. And don't get me wrong, I don't think SC2 is near bad, I just think that it's not living up to Broodwar at all, and there is still opportunity to make it better than it is now.
I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
You do realize we're living in age where information is distributed really, really fast. These sort of things would not be these carefully guarded secrets. I joined BW very late and I'm aware of most of the BW micro tricks. I'm rubbish at pretty much all of them, but I'm well aware of them.
On September 18 2012 10:29 playa wrote: Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
But it is accessible to everyone. It's just a matter of learning. Do you take out backwards skating out of hockey because some people don't want to learn? It's there if you want to, but if you just want to play casual, pond hockey you can be perfectly happy skating forwards and never backwards. These will not be deep, dark secrets. They'll be widely available to everyone... just like Marine splitting. But not everyone is MKP. Do we get rid of the marine split because not everyone can hack it? It's always there waiting, something to aspire to.
The point is, why should MarineKingPrime be able to be better than me at Starcraft? What right does he have? We both paid the same amount for the game, we should both have an equal chance of winning. That's the only way it's fair.
I hate when there's ALWAYS room for me to improve at something... so annoying... trading effort for wins isn't fair because then the guy who tries the hardest always wins and that's imbalanced. Games should be more about who follows the rules the best, and everyone should know the rules, that way everyone can win and it's fair. It also improves the spectator experience because then anyone will know what happens next all the time.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
You do realize we're living in age where information is distributed really, really fast. These sort of things would not be these carefully guarded secrets. I joined BW very late and I'm aware of most of the BW micro tricks. I'm rubbish at pretty much all of them, but I'm well aware of them.
On September 18 2012 10:29 playa wrote: Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
But it is accessible to everyone. It's just a matter of learning. Do you take out backwards skating out of hockey because some people don't want to learn? It's there if you want to, but if you just want to play casual, pond hockey you can be perfectly happy skating forwards and never backwards. These will not be deep, dark secrets. They'll be widely available to everyone... just like Marine splitting. But not everyone is MKP. Do we get rid of the marine split because not everyone can hack it? It's always there waiting, something to aspire to.
Give me a break. Yeah, I would have been playing for years without using patrol micro on vultures if I knew that made them more responsive. I'm going to start playing with only 1 hand. I just like doing that kinda shit. How about make it more accessible. You're just being a clown.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
You do realize we're living in age where information is distributed really, really fast. These sort of things would not be these carefully guarded secrets. I joined BW very late and I'm aware of most of the BW micro tricks. I'm rubbish at pretty much all of them, but I'm well aware of them.
On September 18 2012 10:29 playa wrote: Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
But it is accessible to everyone. It's just a matter of learning. Do you take out backwards skating out of hockey because some people don't want to learn? It's there if you want to, but if you just want to play casual, pond hockey you can be perfectly happy skating forwards and never backwards. These will not be deep, dark secrets. They'll be widely available to everyone... just like Marine splitting. But not everyone is MKP. Do we get rid of the marine split because not everyone can hack it? It's always there waiting, something to aspire to.
Failing gets it.
I joined BW in the year of 2009, actually a shitty year for me because I was cheering movie for that OSL with Flash fluking out in the most imbalanced matchup in BW. But that's beside the point (lol). Anyways, by the first months, I knew how to Mutalisks stack, stop lurkers, Vulture micro, split marines and all that jazz just by simple UMS maps that were made FUCKING 5 YEARS AGO.
Those tricks will be the determining factor between pros because there are some pros who can do them really well and then there are some pros who does it like this:
Go to 10 minutes mark.
This will just give them the edge.
Ever wondered why Jaedong practiced fucking 14+ hours a day @ Oz? Well he is spending 4 extra hours JUST to practice a certain aspect of the game to get ahead of the competitions while others are having their sweet dreams.
Same can be applied to StarCraft 2, you want to add layers to EVERY single units so their potential can be limitless.
I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
You do realize we're living in age where information is distributed really, really fast. These sort of things would not be these carefully guarded secrets. I joined BW very late and I'm aware of most of the BW micro tricks. I'm rubbish at pretty much all of them, but I'm well aware of them.
On September 18 2012 10:29 playa wrote: Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
But it is accessible to everyone. It's just a matter of learning. Do you take out backwards skating out of hockey because some people don't want to learn? It's there if you want to, but if you just want to play casual, pond hockey you can be perfectly happy skating forwards and never backwards. These will not be deep, dark secrets. They'll be widely available to everyone... just like Marine splitting. But not everyone is MKP. Do we get rid of the marine split because not everyone can hack it? It's always there waiting, something to aspire to.
The point is, why should MarineKingPrime be able to be better than me at Starcraft? What right does he have? We both paid the same amount for the game, we should both have an equal chance of winning. That's the only way it's fair.
I hate when there's ALWAYS room for me to improve at something... so annoying... trading effort for wins isn't fair because then the guy who tries the hardest always wins and that's imbalanced. Games should be more about who follows the rules the best, and everyone should know the rules, that way everyone can win and it's fair. It also improves the spectator experience because then anyone will know what happens next all the time.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
You do realize we're living in age where information is distributed really, really fast. These sort of things would not be these carefully guarded secrets. I joined BW very late and I'm aware of most of the BW micro tricks. I'm rubbish at pretty much all of them, but I'm well aware of them.
On September 18 2012 10:29 playa wrote: Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
But it is accessible to everyone. It's just a matter of learning. Do you take out backwards skating out of hockey because some people don't want to learn? It's there if you want to, but if you just want to play casual, pond hockey you can be perfectly happy skating forwards and never backwards. These will not be deep, dark secrets. They'll be widely available to everyone... just like Marine splitting. But not everyone is MKP. Do we get rid of the marine split because not everyone can hack it? It's always there waiting, something to aspire to.
Give me a break. Yeah, I would have been playing for years without using patrol micro on vultures if I knew that made them more responsive. I'm going to start playing with only 1 hand. I just like doing that kinda shit. How about make it more accessible. You're just being a clown.
I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
You do realize we're living in age where information is distributed really, really fast. These sort of things would not be these carefully guarded secrets. I joined BW very late and I'm aware of most of the BW micro tricks. I'm rubbish at pretty much all of them, but I'm well aware of them.
On September 18 2012 10:29 playa wrote: Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
But it is accessible to everyone. It's just a matter of learning. Do you take out backwards skating out of hockey because some people don't want to learn? It's there if you want to, but if you just want to play casual, pond hockey you can be perfectly happy skating forwards and never backwards. These will not be deep, dark secrets. They'll be widely available to everyone... just like Marine splitting. But not everyone is MKP. Do we get rid of the marine split because not everyone can hack it? It's always there waiting, something to aspire to.
The point is, why should MarineKingPrime be able to be better than me at Starcraft? What right does he have? We both paid the same amount for the game, we should both have an equal chance of winning. That's the only way it's fair.
I hate when there's ALWAYS room for me to improve at something... so annoying... trading effort for wins isn't fair because then the guy who tries the hardest always wins and that's imbalanced. Games should be more about who follows the rules the best, and everyone should know the rules, that way everyone can win and it's fair. It also improves the spectator experience because then anyone will know what happens next all the time.
... -.-
The guy below me knows what I'm talking about.
My QQ-o-Meter is high in these.
Seriously you want to be pro on the get go?
Well quit being so lazy man, this is serious business. Professional StarCraft gamers breathe with the game, the keyboard, mice and monitors are the equivalence of their body appendages. Their mind and the gameplay are amalgamated into one piece together.
Now the real question what gives YOU the right to be get on their level?
Nothing man, stop whining and MAN up. You won't get anywhere in life with that loser attitude.
The fact so few in the SC 2 community really question things because they have to tout it as the new esport is a bit saddening. The game has many problems and things like Tyler's suggestion could go a small way in helping address them. People need to stop towing the company line so to speak, and just be honest about why there's a disconnect between SC 2 and BW. I don't care that SC 2 is new or different, I care that it's boring and less nuanced.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
You do realize we're living in age where information is distributed really, really fast. These sort of things would not be these carefully guarded secrets. I joined BW very late and I'm aware of most of the BW micro tricks. I'm rubbish at pretty much all of them, but I'm well aware of them.
On September 18 2012 10:29 playa wrote: Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
But it is accessible to everyone. It's just a matter of learning. Do you take out backwards skating out of hockey because some people don't want to learn? It's there if you want to, but if you just want to play casual, pond hockey you can be perfectly happy skating forwards and never backwards. These will not be deep, dark secrets. They'll be widely available to everyone... just like Marine splitting. But not everyone is MKP. Do we get rid of the marine split because not everyone can hack it? It's always there waiting, something to aspire to.
Give me a break. Yeah, I would have been playing for years without using patrol micro on vultures if I knew that made them more responsive. I'm going to start playing with only 1 hand. I just like doing that kinda shit. How about make it more accessible. You're just being a clown.
I can't tell what this post is trying to say. I assume you are trying to say that being able to do moving shot on mutas wraiths corsairs or somehow on valkyries if you are the one guy in the world who can do it, patrol micro on vults, carrier micro, reaver/shuttle micro, mudang storms, zealot bombs, zealot mine clearings, zergling mine clearings, marine splits vs lurkers, dmatrix marine lurker decoys, cloning scourge vs mutalisks, cloning yamatos vs battlecruisers, cloning lockdowns vs carriers, clearing mines without taking damage by using a shuttle, magic boxing for surrounds and concaves, wraith surrounds of valkyries, storm dodging, pushing with lurker/ling, wraith vs wraith dodging, positioning a mech army, clearing mines without detection, et al. is making your game less accessible. This is a non-issue. You can always attack move if you like. Flocking mutalisks with magic boxes instead of stacking them is even favorable against splash units. The issue is at the moment the choice is too often A-move or bust.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
that's actually the sad reality i, and many others have come to terms with in sc2. no, these tricks and quirks were what made bw so much fun.
once the game becomes designed for casuals 100%, then it'll lose its hardcore fans that created tlnet.
Are people actually taking that Sinensis post seriously lol?
Anyway at least Browder has claimed to be aware of this video and has watched it, indeed thanking Tyler for making it. So, if the Carrier remains in its current form they can't claim ignorance, there's lots of extra juice in the unit if you make it microable
The point is, why should MarineKingPrime be able to be better than me at Starcraft? What right does he have? We both paid the same amount for the game, we should both have an equal chance of winning. That's the only way it's fair.I hate when there's ALWAYS room for me to improve at something... so annoying... trading effort for wins isn't fair because then the guy who tries the hardest always wins and that's imbalanced. Games should be more about who follows the rules the best, and everyone should know the rules, that way everyone can win and it's fair. It also improves the spectator experience because then anyone will know what happens next all the time.... -.-The guy below me knows what I'm talking about.
Not sure if trolling or not. You are suggesting a game that is entirely built upon learning the rules, without any micro ability what so ever. You do realize this is a key part of starcraft as a real time strategy game? If you do not like this style of play, you could play Heroes of Might and Magic, or Chess, or a whole lot of other games that are out.
The point is, why should MarineKingPrime be able to be better than me at Starcraft? What right does he have? We both paid the same amount for the game, we should both have an equal chance of winning. That's the only way it's fair.I hate when there's ALWAYS room for me to improve at something... so annoying... trading effort for wins isn't fair because then the guy who tries the hardest always wins and that's imbalanced. Games should be more about who follows the rules the best, and everyone should know the rules, that way everyone can win and it's fair. It also improves the spectator experience because then anyone will know what happens next all the time.... -.-The guy below me knows what I'm talking about.
Not sure if trolling or not. You are suggesting a game that is entirely built upon learning the rules, without any micro ability what so ever. You do realize this is a key part of starcraft as a real time strategy game? If you do not like this style of play, you could play Heroes of Might and Magic, or Chess, or a whole lot of other games that are out.
I got too into arguing with playa and missed Sinensis' sarcasm as well. He isn't serious.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
The point is, why should MarineKingPrime be able to be better than me at Starcraft? What right does he have? We both paid the same amount for the game, we should both have an equal chance of winning. That's the only way it's fair.I hate when there's ALWAYS room for me to improve at something... so annoying... trading effort for wins isn't fair because then the guy who tries the hardest always wins and that's imbalanced. Games should be more about who follows the rules the best, and everyone should know the rules, that way everyone can win and it's fair. It also improves the spectator experience because then anyone will know what happens next all the time.... -.-The guy below me knows what I'm talking about.
Not sure if trolling or not. You are suggesting a game that is entirely built upon learning the rules, without any micro ability what so ever. You do realize this is a key part of starcraft as a real time strategy game? If you do not like this style of play, you could play Heroes of Might and Magic, or Chess, or a whole lot of other games that are out.
I got too into arguing with playa and missed the sarcasm as well. He isn't serious.
Could we stop the personal attack and the trolling already?
Browders job isn´t to please TeamLiquid, even if it could go a long way if he did. You´re not helping any case by writing sarcastic things on the internet, because on the internet there are always people who are actually convinced of the things you write in jest.
At this point we got a response from the Browder, so I guess we can sit back until the next Beta patch comes around. Should´nt be too long.
i dont understand the importances of browder watching this clip. bw was a blizzard game so i hope to god the current developers at least understood the mechanics of bw. if they didn't and needed this clip to explain to them the mechanics of a game they made then why the hell the hell are they working on starcraft 2.
On September 18 2012 11:46 Tsutchie wrote: i dont understand the importances of browder watching this clip. bw was a blizzard game so i hope to god the current developers at least understood the mechanics of bw. if they didn't and needed this clip to explain to them the mechanics of a game they made then why the hell the hell are they working on starcraft 2.
The importance is they f'd up with protoss in Heart of the Swarm. So, now, they want to show that they are really taking the opinions of pros into consideration. They are probably out of ideas. If the next ideas fail, at least they can say "hey, see, you guys suck too. It's harder than it looks, isn't it?" It's a win/win for them, unless they believe they aren't clueless. If you spent 2 years and came up with those units... you would be taking opinions from bronze players and doing anything to save face, too.
On September 18 2012 11:46 Tsutchie wrote: i dont understand the importances of browder watching this clip. bw was a blizzard game so i hope to god the current developers at least understood the mechanics of bw. if they didn't and needed this clip to explain to them the mechanics of a game they made then why the hell the hell are they working on starcraft 2.
The people who made SC2 made Command and Conquer, not Brood War. The people who made bnet 2.0 made xbox live, not bnet 1.0. Nothing is the same anymore.
Blizzard also has different "owners." Sc2, if you look at it from a staff perspective, should be something like Command and Conquer, xbox live, and Call of Duty mixed together.
On September 18 2012 11:46 Tsutchie wrote: i dont understand the importances of browder watching this clip. bw was a blizzard game so i hope to god the current developers at least understood the mechanics of bw. if they didn't and needed this clip to explain to them the mechanics of a game they made then why the hell the hell are they working on starcraft 2.
They don't, its a completely different team than the BW days.
Its just a bunch of guys that looked at BW unit and went "Huh, what is this game?" "ARGH!!! LOOOK AT ALL CODE!!!! SOOO MUCH GLITCH!!!!"
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
I think that's a little unfair. If this thread is any indication, there have been sudden revelatory 'aha' moments for several people. And this is after a couple years of people trying to explain how carrier micro works and getting dismissed as 'elitists.' What it took was a very concise compare/contrast video demonstration by Tyler. If that can happen with people on this thread, there's no reason why it can't happen with Blizzard.
Exactly, the dismissive, aggressive nature of the posts were always frustrating. Also the BW enthusiasts are sometimes just stark raving fucking mad. Yes skill is important but there comes a point where compromise is insane.
I don't understand - compromise between skill and what else exactly?
Liimiting how many units you can select or buildings is just nuts for example. Yet I saw people push for that and they wondered why the new people hated the idea.
And yet every design team that worked on a Blizzard RTS pre-Browder & co has made a conscious design decision to keep the limit on control groups. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that could vouch for their sanity.
A compromise between being fun to play and just stupidly awkwardly difficult for the sake of being difficult. I'm a major proponent of the command queueing and unit selection advantages from Warcraft 3 (it still blows my mind how many ignorant BW goons were confused about these 'new abilities, amazing!!' which were 5 years old when SC2 shipped)
I agree with a lot of the what the BW guys say, in hindsight as I've learnt a lot - but I don't agree with ridiculous shit. I maintain that multi-building selection for example is just bloody logcal, yet I saw nutcases pushing against that too. Hence my comment regarding compromise.
This carrier discussion (back on topic) is most certainly though in the realm of fitting both parties and presented politely, clearly and easily in video form, anyone can understand how it requires skill and is useful. This is how the BW gurus should've presented stuff 2 years ago, instead of alienating newbies to the game with insults and outlandish claims. (fortunately, it's mostly stopped now)
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
I think that's a little unfair. If this thread is any indication, there have been sudden revelatory 'aha' moments for several people. And this is after a couple years of people trying to explain how carrier micro works and getting dismissed as 'elitists.' What it took was a very concise compare/contrast video demonstration by Tyler. If that can happen with people on this thread, there's no reason why it can't happen with Blizzard.
Exactly, the dismissive, aggressive nature of the posts were always frustrating. Also the BW enthusiasts are sometimes just stark raving fucking mad. Yes skill is important but there comes a point where compromise is insane.
I don't understand - compromise between skill and what else exactly?
Liimiting how many units you can select or buildings is just nuts for example. Yet I saw people push for that and they wondered why the new people hated the idea.
And yet every design team that worked on a Blizzard RTS pre-Browder & co has made a conscious design decision to keep the limit on control groups. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that could vouch for their sanity.
A compromise between being fun to play and just stupidly awkwardly difficult for the sake of being difficult. I'm a major proponent of the command queueing and unit selection advantages from Warcraft 3 (it still blows my mind how many ignorant BW goons were confused about these 'new abilities, amazing!!' which were 5 years old when SC2 shipped)
I agree with a lot of the what the BW guys say, in hindsight as I've learnt a lot - but I don't agree with ridiculous shit. I maintain that multi-building selection for example is just bloody logcal, yet I saw nutcases pushing against that too. Hence my comment regarding compromise.
This carrier discussion (back on topic) is most certainly though in the realm of fitting both parties and presented politely, clearly and easily in video form, anyone can understand how it requires skill and is useful. This is how the BW gurus should've presented stuff 2 years ago, instead of alienating newbies to the game with insults and outlandish claims. (fortunately, it's mostly stopped now)
Well how do you respond to posts like "BW is dead.", "OMG GRAPHICS IS TEH SUX!", and "THIS GAME IZ SO OLD, WHY KEEP ON PLAYING?", or "HE SHOULD SWITCH TO STARCRAFT 2!" when our game is fucking getting pulled out with ActiBlizzard buying out Kespa into forcing StarCraft 2 to be played.
Oh yeah we can totally just add some suggestions to the new game! But then we were met with "OMG JUST LIKE THE BALD GUY HAVE SAID, 'if you want to play bw, go play that instead.' "
Well guess what? OUR PROFESSIONAL SCENE WAS OBLITERATED BY YOU GUYS!
And for that you know, MBS was completely capable 13 years ago but they put the cap on because they WANT TO CHALLENGE THE PLAYERS, NOT SPOONFEED THE CONSUMERS WITH CASUAL WEAR BECAUSE OF THEIR GREED.
When looking at the game you need to decide what matters more, the strategy aspect, or the mechanics aspect. Brood war was much more about the mechanics part, there were really hard and sometimes really annoying stuff that made it impossible to play at a high level without fast hands, and that is unlike SC2 which while having still not having a reachable skill ceiling is much more easy and "casual" which lets slower players compete with faster players.
I think SC2 is ways better then BW at that aspect; everyone can play at a decent level (diamond - master), even if you ae really slow, as long as you learn counters, a build order and general strategy you will get high (not able to compete with even semi-pro's, but still pretty high, unlike BW where unless you had an enormous amount of APM you were doomed to be forever a noob, even if you had great strategy and tactics.
The game should always allow for A-move and simple management, unless you can do it at the casual level it is not a part of the game that is fun for everyone. I don't mind cool tricks and micro that require high level, as long as simple play and basic micro is still possible. For example - as long as the carrier can still do OK without micro it is OK to put in some sort of trick.
I know you guys are always bitching about how SC2 is lame since it is casual and BW was so hard and therefore good, but what the developers of SC2 strive for is to make the game not only good for the pro's and the viewers, but for the casual player-base as well, and I really like that, I don't want to suffer when I play. I want to focus on the strategy and following my gameplan, not focus on putting my workers to mine and trying to fix the dumb AI and UI.
TL;DR Restrictions are bad, extra possible micro is good, therefore the carrier trick is good.
EDIT: lol Xiphos you sure love caps, that just requires the saying: "you mad bro?"
On September 18 2012 12:19 moskonia wrote: When looking at the game you need to decide what matters more, the strategy aspect, or the mechanics aspect. Brood war was much more about the mechanics part, there were really hard and sometimes really annoying stuff that made it impossible to play at a high level without fast hands, and that is unlike SC2 which while having still not having a reachable skill ceiling is much more easy and "casual" which lets slower players compete with faster players.
I think SC2 is ways better then BW at that aspect; everyone can play at a decent level (diamond - master), even if you ae really slow, as long as you learn counters, a build order and general strategy you will get high (not able to compete with even semi-pro's, but still pretty high, unlike BW where unless you had an enormous amount of APM you were doomed to be forever a noob, even if you had great strategy and tactics.
The game should always allow for A-move and simple management, unless you can do it at the casual level it is not a part of the game that is fun for everyone. I don't mind cool tricks and micro that require high level, as long as simple play and basic micro is still possible. For example - as long as the carrier can still do OK without micro it is OK to put in some sort of trick.
I know you guys are always bitching about how SC2 is lame since it is casual and BW was so hard and therefore good, but what the developers of SC2 strive for is to make the game not only good for the pro's and the viewers, but for the casual player-base as well, and I really like that, I don't want to suffer when I play. I want to focus on the strategy and following my gameplan, not focus on putting my workers to mine and trying to fix the dumb AI and UI.
TL;DR Restrictions are bad, extra possible micro is good, therefore the carrier trick is good.
EDIT: lol Xiphos you sure love caps, that just requires the saying: "you mad bro?"
3 words: REAL TIME STRATEGY
Real time part focuses on the mechanics aspect Strategy part obviously is the strategy aspects
You need both to make the game what it should be so they should not focus on just one. They should focus on both.
Edit: I say the Carrier Micro doesn't really take away anything from the game anyway so why not? Sounds like a smashing idea.
Guys, this is still off topic. Where are the mods when you need them?
This shouldn´t be BW vs SC2 if I recall correctly. There were good things about BW and there were bad things too. I am sure nobody misses the special challenge of getting dragoons down a small diagonal ramp. Carrier Micro though is one of the good aspects that should be coming over. Incidentally, that´s also the FUCKING TOPIC of this thread.
On September 18 2012 12:19 moskonia wrote: When looking at the game you need to decide what matters more, the strategy aspect, or the mechanics aspect. Brood war was much more about the mechanics part, there were really hard and sometimes really annoying stuff that made it impossible to play at a high level without fast hands, and that is unlike SC2 which while having still not having a reachable skill ceiling is much more easy and "casual" which lets slower players compete with faster players.
I think SC2 is ways better then BW at that aspect; everyone can play at a decent level (diamond - master), even if you ae really slow, as long as you learn counters, a build order and general strategy you will get high (not able to compete with even semi-pro's, but still pretty high, unlike BW where unless you had an enormous amount of APM you were doomed to be forever a noob, even if you had great strategy and tactics.
The game should always allow for A-move and simple management, unless you can do it at the casual level it is not a part of the game that is fun for everyone. I don't mind cool tricks and micro that require high level, as long as simple play and basic micro is still possible. For example - as long as the carrier can still do OK without micro it is OK to put in some sort of trick.
I know you guys are always bitching about how SC2 is lame since it is casual and BW was so hard and therefore good, but what the developers of SC2 strive for is to make the game not only good for the pro's and the viewers, but for the casual player-base as well, and I really like that, I don't want to suffer when I play. I want to focus on the strategy and following my gameplan, not focus on putting my workers to mine and trying to fix the dumb AI and UI.
TL;DR Restrictions are bad, extra possible micro is good, therefore the carrier trick is good.
EDIT: lol Xiphos you sure love caps, that just requires the saying: "you mad bro?"
Am I mad because I played a superior game?
No
Am I mad because I experienced the godlike aura given by the players?
No I am not.
Am I mad because I know that I know that my gaming skills are better than yours?
Of course not
Am I mad because the sequel would never became as great of culture impact than its dad with its dwindling fanbase?
Definitely not.
Before you start to instill this 'madness' into others, its time for a healthy dosage of reality check.
By the way, mechanics is way harder to harness than decisions.
Decisions, I can change the selection of choices just like that in a snap of finger.
On September 18 2012 12:19 moskonia wrote: When looking at the game you need to decide what matters more, the strategy aspect, or the mechanics aspect. Brood war was much more about the mechanics part, there were really hard and sometimes really annoying stuff that made it impossible to play at a high level without fast hands, and that is unlike SC2 which while having still not having a reachable skill ceiling is much more easy and "casual" which lets slower players compete with faster players.
I think SC2 is ways better then BW at that aspect; everyone can play at a decent level (diamond - master), even if you ae really slow, as long as you learn counters, a build order and general strategy you will get high (not able to compete with even semi-pro's, but still pretty high, unlike BW where unless you had an enormous amount of APM you were doomed to be forever a noob, even if you had great strategy and tactics.
The game should always allow for A-move and simple management, unless you can do it at the casual level it is not a part of the game that is fun for everyone. I don't mind cool tricks and micro that require high level, as long as simple play and basic micro is still possible. For example - as long as the carrier can still do OK without micro it is OK to put in some sort of trick.
I know you guys are always bitching about how SC2 is lame since it is casual and BW was so hard and therefore good, but what the developers of SC2 strive for is to make the game not only good for the pro's and the viewers, but for the casual player-base as well, and I really like that, I don't want to suffer when I play. I want to focus on the strategy and following my gameplan, not focus on putting my workers to mine and trying to fix the dumb AI and UI.
TL;DR Restrictions are bad, extra possible micro is good, therefore the carrier trick is good.
EDIT: lol Xiphos you sure love caps, that just requires the saying: "you mad bro?"
On September 18 2012 12:44 Mataza wrote: Guys, this is still off topic. Where are the mods when you need them?
This shouldn´t be BW vs SC2 if I recall correctly. There were good things about BW and there were bad things too. I am sure nobody misses the special challenge of getting dragoons down a small diagonal ramp. Carrier Micro though is one of the good aspects that should be coming over. Incidentally, that´s also the FUCKING TOPIC of this thread.
Amen. That was just frustration pure for a BW noob like me...
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
I'm confused. All these "tricks" are quirks that players found themselves through practice and experimentation. Why does anyone owe you a tutorial video on how to use all these techniques? If carrier micro is really what kept you out of the finals of the WCG, then the guy who beat you (or progressed farther) with correct carrier micro deserves the spot in the finals because he was better prepared than you. He not only learned the appropriate strategies, but he also took the time to learn the micro. This information is available on the Internet; it's not like you are the one who had to invent these techniques.
The way I discovered most of these is by playing a lot of Starcraft and noticing how my units acted. Then when I watched pro-games or faced someone on Bnet that was really good (read: Korean), I would notice their units would act in ways completely different from mine. I wondered how their vultures would never seem to stop moving when attacking lings and zealots. I tried using A-move, Hold position, and nothing worked that well. I did a quick google search, and I instantly found posts about the superiority of using patrol-move. I thought it was the coolest thing ever, and it made me want to find out more tricks. I saw Nada avoiding lurker spikes, which I never knew was possible. I practiced until I could do it too. Same thing with reaver+shuttle micro. I would make custom games against the computer and put on "power overwhelming" so that I could just practice targeting with my reaver and micro-ing my shuttle. It's stuff like this that made the game awesome and increased the longevity of the game for me. All it takes to learn these things is observation and curiosity followed by practice....
PS There were UMS micro maps that were pretty much only beatable using the correct micro tricks. If you played them a few times, you could easily come across someone that beat the levels. Then, all you had to do was ask, and most people were nice enough to share the tricks they knew.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
It's not about making the game into BW, it's about having the best aspects of both games. It's about building on with consideration and effort what was built partly by coincidence.
Your bringing up intuition was addressed earlier. BW carriers are not less intuitive just because they have more dimensions to them. You can always A-move it if you like. If anything, the SC2 carrier is less intuitive because it doesn't do so many of the things that we have known "carriers" to do for over a decade, and in fact when you try to do the same micro, it actually hurts you and is a waste of your multitask.
Your lambasting of skilled players employing micro to gain an advantage over their opponents doesn't make sense. It's not an auto-win trick like a cheat code. If you tried to get to the top of a ladder or the finals of a tournament using carrier micro, you would realize a couple games in that every time you tried to use carriers you got killed because you weren't reading your opponent's build, or all your bases got dropped and killed because you don't have the multitask to focus on anything but your carriers. The battle isn't fought on the level of "I know the old-school secrets of carrier micro" versus "I have cloaked wraiths using the ancient art of moving shot." It's on the level of "I am multitasking and you're multitasking, and we need to figure out what to prioritize with our APM, which will only be effective if there are ways to micro your units in this game that reward the effort you put in."
If you were playing a game of chess and you fell into the Tarrasch Trap in the Ruy Lopez, would you say your opponent was a worse chess player and he only beat you because he knew some old-school trick that shouldn't be part of the game? Would you expect to improve, let alone enjoy yourself, with that attitude at all?
I had shitty mechanics but I loved BW. So much decision making in that game despite low mechanics. Choosing to unit control or choosing to macro or choosing to do anything is a huge decision in that game. From the first pylon placement on, BW had all the best decision making in the world. The first pylon decides how the first 8 minutes is going to play out...
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
you should probably stick to being a 'pro' in angry birds or some other casual game that doesn't require a lot of mechanics and nuances.
Excellent post, was wondering why the carrier seemed so strong in BW (never played watched a bit) and extremely hard to capitalize on its cost and build time in sc2
Blizzard has heard you! Someone posted a thread on Battle.net's forums linking to LiquidNony's video. A Blizzard developer posting under the name Rock (believed to be D. Browders Screen name) replied in this way:
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
Is it lip service? Or could it be the beginning of Blizzard taking a serious look at redesigning the Carrier? Judge for yourself.
Dustin browder's response on battlenet indicates openess to change, but theres an undertone that he doesn't like this. Maybe in just being pessimistic since blizzard has really annoyed me over the past few years.
But i really hope this change makes it, it would make carriers alot more entertaining to watch in esports
Hey, nice work! I tried it out and the leash range targeting works perfectly. There was a weird glitch where if you move out of range and the interceptors return, an attack command causes the carriers to move toward the target until they reach the extent of leash range (12?) and then just sit there. Spamming attack or move commands doesn't fix it, you have to issue a stop command and then try attacking again, at which point the carriers will move to 8 range and launch interceptors.[/QUOTE]
Fixed. I did throw this together in 30 minutes afterall, after having a stroke of inspiration at watching Nony's video. The carrier's attack now seems to work perfectly compared to the BW video demo of the leash target micro.
Search: Bizarro Carrier on NA arcade to try it out.
Also, would there be any interest in me publishing a proper WoL melee map (Cloud kingdom probably) with this carrier change to see how the modified carriers feel in real combat? It would be quite vexing if BW carrier micro turned out to be still not enough to make a difference against infestor-brood lord or vikings.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
you should probably stick to being a 'pro' in angry birds or some other casual game that doesn't require a lot of mechanics and nuances.
You should probably stick to not posting unless it's on a comedian forum. Why stop at adding back the carrier mechanics. You guys are smart and know what makes a game good. Add some random element to every unit. Show some imagination for christ sake. I don't think stalkers should be able to shoot unless you tell it to go in a circle first, and then you have to tell it to hold position and shift queue the attack. Only the most uber elite ballers will even be able to attack. I think the zealot should get a ranged attack if you spam the attack command 5 times within a second.
You can add random shit to every fucking unit, and it will increase the "depth." You guys have a weird fascination for what you know, whether it makes any fucking sense or not. I enjoy good micro. Good reaver micro is something to behold. I would just like to think that you wouldn't have to search through tl.net to learn how to micro units. Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
You guys want difficulty, but, ironically, blizzard felt inclined to make this game a lot easier. Maybe if some of you guys were better, yourself, blizzard wouldn't have to do this for money and for the sake of the competitive scene. Add more difficulty. Keep adding to it so I can only watch Korean tournaments. Everyone is biased. The only sure thing is that is what would happen.
It seems like you're speaking directly to Blizzard, especially at the end there. What are the chances of them watching this video? Have you sent it to them, or are you just crossing your fingers?
On September 18 2012 15:01 Serz wrote: Excellent post, was wondering why the carrier seemed so strong in BW (never played watched a bit) and extremely hard to capitalize on its cost and build time in sc2
carrier is not strong when is scouted. micro helps a bit but is definitely not op. . the only way to have entertaining game is to have controls implemented.
On September 18 2012 16:01 playa wrote: Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
Someone who wants to get better at the game maybe? This change, along with similar depth improvements, would not make the game more difficult per se, as you can still chose to a-move. It just allows for better players to distinguish themselves from worse ones. And this is something WoL and HotS are lacking severely atm.
Lol, I'm done. You guys are clueless. Yeah, you're supposed to realize you're not supposed to issue the attack command against zealots or lings, but instead use patrol. Man, that's just so so obvious. You guys are amazing. Only a fool would practice trying to get better by practicing his attack command micro. You guys should never complain about Dustin Browder. There's no way he can be worse than this.
@playa I don't know when you almost went to the WCG, but I feel like you're letting that experience colour the bigger picture.
Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
And if it's before, well yeah you're starting to go back before vods were easily available. But we're not living in the dark ages of SC (pre-replay for instance). A new strategy or micro trick gets discovered and that gets disseminated very quickly. (Fazing for instance, until Blizzard patched it out.)
The rest of your post is entirely unreasonable. Adding carrier micro doesn't break the attack move function of the carrier. There's no extra restrictions put on it. Rather, new options are added. Carrier movement Plus.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
you should probably stick to being a 'pro' in angry birds or some other casual game that doesn't require a lot of mechanics and nuances.
You should probably stick to not posting unless it's on a comedian forum. Why stop at adding back the carrier mechanics. You guys are smart and know what makes a game good. Add some random element to every unit. Show some imagination for christ sake. I don't think stalkers should be able to shoot unless you tell it to go in a circle first, and then you have to tell it to hold position and shift queue the attack. Only the most uber elite ballers will even be able to attack. I think the zealot should get a ranged attack if you spam the attack command 5 times within a second.
You can add random shit to every fucking unit, and it will increase the "depth." You guys have a weird fascination for what you know, whether it makes any fucking sense or not. I enjoy good micro. Good reaver micro is something to behold. I would just like to think that you wouldn't have to search through tl.net to learn how to micro units. Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
You guys want difficulty, but, ironically, blizzard felt inclined to make this game a lot easier. Maybe if some of you guys were better, yourself, blizzard wouldn't have to do this for money and for the sake of the competitive scene. Add more difficulty. Keep adding to it so I can only watch Korean tournaments. Everyone is biased. The only sure thing is that is what would happen.
Wow you're so creative! you should be a developer alongside browder! you're obviously very talented and filled with brilliant ideas people crave for!
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
you should probably stick to being a 'pro' in angry birds or some other casual game that doesn't require a lot of mechanics and nuances.
You should probably stick to not posting unless it's on a comedian forum. Why stop at adding back the carrier mechanics. You guys are smart and know what makes a game good. Add some random element to every unit. Show some imagination for christ sake. I don't think stalkers should be able to shoot unless you tell it to go in a circle first, and then you have to tell it to hold position and shift queue the attack. Only the most uber elite ballers will even be able to attack. I think the zealot should get a ranged attack if you spam the attack command 5 times within a second.
You're raving. There's a reason none of your opponents are advocating adding random shit, and that's because it doesn't make sense. These aren't combos in a fighting game, it's very basic shit. The reason you might think to look at the patrol button to micro the vulture is because you only have five choices. Is the move command going to make the vulture shoot backwards while moving? No, it stops the vulture from shooting. What about the hold and stop commands? Those will stop the vulture from moving. What about the attack command? We know what that does already. Now how about the patrol command - oh! And imagine that, you can use the same button for moving shot with all the units. We're not talking about 10 pages of special combo moves with moving shot, it's one technique.
You don't have to look on the internet to figure out how to micro a unit. You can always just attack move it. Your life won't end just because you didn't figure out moving shot. You also have to look on the internet to learn what build Stephano is using, or what the latest 1-1-1 opening is. Does that mean I should ridicule you for suggesting the game execute builds for you? No, because it's a nonsense suggestion, and I'd assume you know better.
You can add random shit to every fucking unit, and it will increase the "depth." You guys have a weird fascination for what you know, whether it makes any fucking sense or not. I enjoy good micro. Good reaver micro is something to behold. I would just like to think that you wouldn't have to search through tl.net to learn how to micro units. Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
You keep using accessibility as a buzzword because you probably haven't read anyone's rebuttal. It's not like if you build a vulture and don't know what patrol micro is, the vulture turns into a fucking pile of destructible rocks because the player is too stupid to know how to use it. You can ALWAYS ATTACK MOVE.
You mean who is supposed to know you should attack your own units to charge a void ray?
What if I don't know that psionic storm is a spell that does AoE damage to units? Why are high templar so inaccessible? Wait, it has a tooltip on the spell! There's another tooltip for moving shot, it's called wiki.teamtooltip.com. Or word of mouth.
You guys want difficulty, but, ironically, blizzard felt inclined to make this game a lot easier. Maybe if some of you guys were better, yourself, blizzard wouldn't have to do this for money and for the sake of the competitive scene. Add more difficulty. Keep adding to it so I can only watch Korean tournaments. Everyone is biased. The only sure thing is that is what would happen.
This is all irrelevant. No, I'm not Nada, neither is everyone else who isn't Nada. That has nothing to do with a discussion about game design.
Seems like this issue will fall under the radar for next 2 years like almost every other in previous beta. Lets work at new units, gotta make that tempest useful somehow.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
you should probably stick to being a 'pro' in angry birds or some other casual game that doesn't require a lot of mechanics and nuances.
You should probably stick to not posting unless it's on a comedian forum. Why stop at adding back the carrier mechanics. You guys are smart and know what makes a game good. Add some random element to every unit. Show some imagination for christ sake. I don't think stalkers should be able to shoot unless you tell it to go in a circle first, and then you have to tell it to hold position and shift queue the attack. Only the most uber elite ballers will even be able to attack. I think the zealot should get a ranged attack if you spam the attack command 5 times within a second.
You can add random shit to every fucking unit, and it will increase the "depth." You guys have a weird fascination for what you know, whether it makes any fucking sense or not. I enjoy good micro. Good reaver micro is something to behold. I would just like to think that you wouldn't have to search through tl.net to learn how to micro units. Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
You guys want difficulty, but, ironically, blizzard felt inclined to make this game a lot easier. Maybe if some of you guys were better, yourself, blizzard wouldn't have to do this for money and for the sake of the competitive scene. Add more difficulty. Keep adding to it so I can only watch Korean tournaments. Everyone is biased. The only sure thing is that is what would happen.
I seriously don't get why you don't want to add these mechanics to the Carrier. It's not like it's something you have to do or else it won't be able to do anything. It's an addition rather than a exchange.
With this mechanic, people can still choose to A-move the carrier and let it do its thing or they can choose to micro it. Even micro-ing it isn't a full on advantage as you are choosing to "babysit" your carriers instead of being able to do another thing. There's still a trade-off. With that being said, more decision making and strategy is also added. You have to ask "How do I spend my APM? Do I spend all my time during this engagement micro-ing my carriers so they will be used with maximum efficiency? Do I let them just attack and kill as much as they can without micro so I can macro back at home and just be ready for the next engagement? Do I do a little bit of both? How much of each? 50-50? 60-40? These are the types of questions you could ask with adding this feature.
This is why so many people are really pushing for this. It adds both to the mechanics aspect and the decision making aspect.
On September 18 2012 16:26 playa wrote: Lol, I'm done. You guys are clueless. Yeah, you're supposed to realize you're not supposed to issue the attack command against zealots or lings, but instead use patrol. Man, that's just so so obvious. You guys are amazing. Only a fool would practice trying to get better by practicing his attack command micro. You guys should never complain about Dustin Browder. There's no way he can be worse than this.
LOL you're the one who's clueless. perhaps the only thing you know how to properly do is a-move that's why carrier micro or vulture patrol doesn't really stick to your brain. please read the post of mage and try to understand things.
On September 18 2012 16:01 playa wrote: Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
Someone who wants to get better at the game maybe? This change, along with similar depth improvements, would not make the game more difficult per se, as you can still chose to a-move. It just allows for better players to distinguish themselves from worse ones. And this is something WoL and HotS are lacking severely atm.
I agree with playa, the amazing micro tricks that were found were ultimately just glitches in the game, imo. That was and is actually my hope for sc2, to have such incredible potential for micro as in sc1, without it looking like as if we were abusing some exploit.
definitely. i hated the carrier in sc2 so much more than in BW, but I just couldn't list all the reasons, but they are listed here. Good post and excellent suggestion.
On September 17 2012 17:56 winthrop wrote: so in starcraft 2 the carrier bug is fixed. dont whine
You know that many things you are using nowadays were first unintended(daily life)? So in programming language they were bugs or unintended mechanics. But because they proved to be useful they remained untouched or even built upon, thus switching up their official unintended status for intended, because letting it stay was concious acceptance of its usefulness.
man, you should not make happiness out of others' sadness
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
you should probably stick to being a 'pro' in angry birds or some other casual game that doesn't require a lot of mechanics and nuances.
You should probably stick to not posting unless it's on a comedian forum. Why stop at adding back the carrier mechanics. You guys are smart and know what makes a game good. Add some random element to every unit. Show some imagination for christ sake. I don't think stalkers should be able to shoot unless you tell it to go in a circle first, and then you have to tell it to hold position and shift queue the attack. Only the most uber elite ballers will even be able to attack. I think the zealot should get a ranged attack if you spam the attack command 5 times within a second.
You can add random shit to every fucking unit, and it will increase the "depth." You guys have a weird fascination for what you know, whether it makes any fucking sense or not. I enjoy good micro. Good reaver micro is something to behold. I would just like to think that you wouldn't have to search through tl.net to learn how to micro units. Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
You guys want difficulty, but, ironically, blizzard felt inclined to make this game a lot easier. Maybe if some of you guys were better, yourself, blizzard wouldn't have to do this for money and for the sake of the competitive scene. Add more difficulty. Keep adding to it so I can only watch Korean tournaments. Everyone is biased. The only sure thing is that is what would happen.
I seriously don't get why you don't want to add these mechanics to the Carrier. It's not like it's something you have to do or else it won't be able to do anything. It's an addition rather than a exchange.
With this mechanic, people can still choose to A-move the carrier and let it do its thing or they can choose to micro it. Even micro-ing it isn't a full on advantage as you are choosing to "babysit" your carriers instead of being able to do another thing. There's still a trade-off. With that being said, more decision making and strategy is also added. You have to ask "How do I spend my APM? Do I spend all my time during this engagement micro-ing my carriers so they will be used with maximum efficiency? Do I let them just attack and kill as much as they can without micro so I can macro back at home and just be ready for the next engagement? Do I do a little bit of both? How much of each? 50-50? 60-40? These are the types of questions you could ask with adding this feature.
This is why so many people are really pushing for this. It adds both to the mechanics aspect and the decision making aspect.
I want more micro to Carrier and other units, but I do agree with playa in one thing: "vulture patrol", "interceptors not returning in carrier when stop is used" and things like this are program bugs. You can't ask from developer team to include them in game like that. But, they can incorporate them in legal way by transforming bugs to features.
For example, instead of vulture being able to fire and move using patrol key, he could have ability "Throw grenade" on cool down that is same as attack speed. This ability should "Throw grenade without slowing down vulture". When vulture attacks, cool down is triggered as well. But, if you move, and manually press throw grenade, vulture will not slow down but it would fire up. In this case we have micro intensive unit, and its use is clear to anyone, without need to dig deep on net and try to find out exploits.
Same thing is with carrier. Why not introduce auto cast ability "Dock interceptors" that should "Return interceptors in carrier for repair when attack is completed and while Carrier is moving. If Carrier stops interceptors will dock with carrier anyway". Better do this than ask for user to press stop and than move. This way we have ability that requires same micro and is clear to everyone what will happen.
So, I'm for legal stuff that requires micro. It is not fair that I and someone who has 200+ APM can get same out of units. It is like playing with Jordan 1v1 and telling him he can only jump high as much as I do.
I wouldn't mind every unit to have same logic as "Throw grenade" example on vulture. It would attack regularly if it is not babysit, otherwise you could kite a bit and get some extra advantage. That is if you have enough APM to micro and macro.
I doubt Blizzard will implement stuff that is not "noob" friendly. they would lose much money.
"On September 18 2012 11:46 Tsutchie wrote: i dont understand the importances of browder watching this clip. bw was a blizzard game so i hope to god the current developers at least understood the mechanics of bw. if they didn't and needed this clip to explain to them the mechanics of a game they made then why the hell the hell are they working on starcraft 2."
Browder and his crew made C&C Generals, C&C Red Alert 2 and Battle for Middle Earth 1. They had nothing to do with BW, in addition i dont think they ever played bw in multiplayer.
On September 18 2012 18:26 TaShadan wrote: I doubt Blizzard will implement stuff that is not "noob" friendly. they would lose much money.
This chain of thought is so ridiculous and relates nothing to the discussion at hand.
Implementing this makes no difference to how accessable the game is, just adds an extra layer on top of what's already there. Would people who barely play in Bronze League get use out of this? probably not, if they did they'd improve faster.
On September 18 2012 18:26 TaShadan wrote: I doubt Blizzard will implement stuff that is not "noob" friendly. they would lose much money.
This chain of thought is so ridiculous and relates nothing to the discussion at hand.
Implementing this makes no difference to how accessable the game is, just adds an extra layer on top of what's already there. Would people who barely play in Bronze League get use out of this? probably not, if they did they'd improve faster.
"noobs" will get frustrated not being able to use it.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
you should probably stick to being a 'pro' in angry birds or some other casual game that doesn't require a lot of mechanics and nuances.
You should probably stick to not posting unless it's on a comedian forum. Why stop at adding back the carrier mechanics. You guys are smart and know what makes a game good. Add some random element to every unit. Show some imagination for christ sake. I don't think stalkers should be able to shoot unless you tell it to go in a circle first, and then you have to tell it to hold position and shift queue the attack. Only the most uber elite ballers will even be able to attack. I think the zealot should get a ranged attack if you spam the attack command 5 times within a second.
You can add random shit to every fucking unit, and it will increase the "depth." You guys have a weird fascination for what you know, whether it makes any fucking sense or not. I enjoy good micro. Good reaver micro is something to behold. I would just like to think that you wouldn't have to search through tl.net to learn how to micro units. Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
You guys want difficulty, but, ironically, blizzard felt inclined to make this game a lot easier. Maybe if some of you guys were better, yourself, blizzard wouldn't have to do this for money and for the sake of the competitive scene. Add more difficulty. Keep adding to it so I can only watch Korean tournaments. Everyone is biased. The only sure thing is that is what would happen.
I seriously don't get why you don't want to add these mechanics to the Carrier. It's not like it's something you have to do or else it won't be able to do anything. It's an addition rather than a exchange.
With this mechanic, people can still choose to A-move the carrier and let it do its thing or they can choose to micro it. Even micro-ing it isn't a full on advantage as you are choosing to "babysit" your carriers instead of being able to do another thing. There's still a trade-off. With that being said, more decision making and strategy is also added. You have to ask "How do I spend my APM? Do I spend all my time during this engagement micro-ing my carriers so they will be used with maximum efficiency? Do I let them just attack and kill as much as they can without micro so I can macro back at home and just be ready for the next engagement? Do I do a little bit of both? How much of each? 50-50? 60-40? These are the types of questions you could ask with adding this feature.
This is why so many people are really pushing for this. It adds both to the mechanics aspect and the decision making aspect.
I want more micro to Carrier and other units, but I do agree with playa in one thing: "vulture patrol", "interceptors not returning in carrier when stop is used" and things like this are program bugs. You can't ask from developer team to include them in game like that. But, they can incorporate them in legal way by transforming bugs to features.
For example, instead of vulture being able to fire and move using patrol key, he could have ability "Throw grenade" on cool down that is same as attack speed. This ability should "Throw grenade without slowing down vulture". When vulture attacks, cool down is triggered as well. But, if you move, and manually press throw grenade, vulture will not slow down but it would fire up. In this case we have micro intensive unit, and its use is clear to anyone, without need to dig deep on net and try to find out exploits.
Same thing is with carrier. Why not introduce auto cast ability "Dock interceptors" that should "Return interceptors in carrier for repair when attack is completed and while Carrier is moving. If Carrier stops interceptors will dock with carrier anyway". Better do this than ask for user to press stop and than move. This way we have ability that requires same micro and is clear to everyone what will happen.
So, I'm for legal stuff that requires micro. It is not fair that I and someone who has 200+ APM can get same out of units. It is like playing with Jordan 1v1 and telling him he can only jump high as much as I do.
I wouldn't mind every unit to have same logic as "Throw grenade" example on vulture. It would attack regularly if it is not babysit, otherwise you could kite a bit and get some extra advantage. That is if you have enough APM to micro and macro.
sounds like a good idea having units with certain abilities and/or behaviours that allow more micro
On September 18 2012 18:26 TaShadan wrote: I doubt Blizzard will implement stuff that is not "noob" friendly. they would lose much money.
This chain of thought is so ridiculous and relates nothing to the discussion at hand.
Implementing this makes no difference to how accessable the game is, just adds an extra layer on top of what's already there. Would people who barely play in Bronze League get use out of this? probably not, if they did they'd improve faster.
"noobs" will get frustrated not being able to use it.
That's not true at all.
People in Bronze either play for fun or they play to improve. I don't think I've ever seen someone get really frustrated at an RTS for not being able to do things. Look at fighting games, new players can't do long combos, do they care? No.
On September 18 2012 18:26 TaShadan wrote: I doubt Blizzard will implement stuff that is not "noob" friendly. they would lose much money.
This chain of thought is so ridiculous and relates nothing to the discussion at hand.
Implementing this makes no difference to how accessable the game is, just adds an extra layer on top of what's already there. Would people who barely play in Bronze League get use out of this? probably not, if they did they'd improve faster.
"noobs" will get frustrated not being able to use it.
That's not true at all.
People in Bronze either play for fun or they play to improve. I don't think I've ever seen someone get really frustrated at an RTS for not being able to do things. Look at fighting games, new players can't do long combos, do they care? No.
ever played bw? i knew lots of mediocre players that quit after they were not able to get top level and some of my friends never wanted to buy bw or play online cause its too hard for them, they instead play sc2 now cause its much more noob friendly. but maybe thats in every game no matter how hard it is.
On September 18 2012 18:26 TaShadan wrote: I doubt Blizzard will implement stuff that is not "noob" friendly. they would lose much money.
This chain of thought is so ridiculous and relates nothing to the discussion at hand.
Implementing this makes no difference to how accessable the game is, just adds an extra layer on top of what's already there. Would people who barely play in Bronze League get use out of this? probably not, if they did they'd improve faster.
"noobs" will get frustrated not being able to use it.
That's not true at all.
People in Bronze either play for fun or they play to improve. I don't think I've ever seen someone get really frustrated at an RTS for not being able to do things. Look at fighting games, new players can't do long combos, do they care? No.
ever played bw? i knew lots of mediocre players that quit after they were not able to get top level. but maybe thats in every game no matter how hard it is.
I played Broodwar for 2-3 years. I was really bad at it, but I enjoyed playing. I didn't care that I couldn't do the cool micro the pros could do, since I knew I wasn't as good as them.
Sorry for derailing this topic about carriers, I just said what I think needed to be said to quell these badly thought out and generalised opinions.
On September 18 2012 18:26 TaShadan wrote: I doubt Blizzard will implement stuff that is not "noob" friendly. they would lose much money.
This chain of thought is so ridiculous and relates nothing to the discussion at hand.
Implementing this makes no difference to how accessable the game is, just adds an extra layer on top of what's already there. Would people who barely play in Bronze League get use out of this? probably not, if they did they'd improve faster.
"noobs" will get frustrated not being able to use it.
That's not true at all.
People in Bronze either play for fun or they play to improve. I don't think I've ever seen someone get really frustrated at an RTS for not being able to do things. Look at fighting games, new players can't do long combos, do they care? No.
ever played bw? i knew lots of mediocre players that quit after they were not able to get top level and some of my friends never wanted to buy bw or play online cause its too hard for them, they instead play sc2 now cause its much more noob friendly. but maybe thats in every game no matter how hard it is.
Wouldn't those same people just quit now? Because even now mediocre players aren't going to take games off of anyone that plays in the GSL. What difference would carrier micro make to that? In my experience, if newbs find it fun, it's usually in the context of playing with friends. Many of those have no desire to improve. They just want to play the occasional game of Starcraft. All that mattered is that we had relatively balanced teams so that we could have some competitive games.
They feared when my mouse started clicking like crazy as I started pulling out vulture micro, but if we balanced the teams (off-race 1v2v2, Terran no tank usually worked) it didn't effect whether they wanted to play the game or not. They couldn't be bothered to learn the skill and so carried on right clicking their armies around the map.
well the thing with broodwar is that its not only about micro. its about the basic stuff that makes it more demanding and maybe thats why my friends didnt want to play it (moving probes to mine etc.). if a game is too hardcore the buyers might be mainly hardcore gamers not the common casual player. casual players dont want to invest much effort and energy for learning basic stuff.
PS: no i dont want to have casual rts games but in my oppinion browder likes it
i tried to create this yesterday but failed. tried again today and i have this
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
So a random guy on the internet made this small change in a couple of hours... well, thinking about blizzard time it sounds like we can expect blizzard to change it in the next 2 or 3 months then :-)
On September 18 2012 16:26 playa wrote: Lol, I'm done. You guys are clueless. Yeah, you're supposed to realize you're not supposed to issue the attack command against zealots or lings, but instead use patrol. Man, that's just so so obvious. You guys are amazing. Only a fool would practice trying to get better by practicing his attack command micro. You guys should never complain about Dustin Browder. There's no way he can be worse than this.
I agree that it should be more accessible, perhaps in the way dugokontov described. But in many cases knowing how to do it only gets you to the point where you can practice and improve it. I'm pretty sure I know almost everything there is to know about mutalisk behaviour, but there's still a huge difference between my micro and a pro Korean's.
Besides, this isn't even the point. I just want more cool micro in the game. I don't care if it's intuitive or unintuitive, if you have to look up instructions or if they're displayed on the tooltip, if it's based on bugs or on something intentional, if it's like BW or not like BW! As long as you give me more ways to do more with less, more of Day[9]'s frisbees!
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
you should probably stick to being a 'pro' in angry birds or some other casual game that doesn't require a lot of mechanics and nuances.
You should probably stick to not posting unless it's on a comedian forum. Why stop at adding back the carrier mechanics. You guys are smart and know what makes a game good. Add some random element to every unit. Show some imagination for christ sake. I don't think stalkers should be able to shoot unless you tell it to go in a circle first, and then you have to tell it to hold position and shift queue the attack. Only the most uber elite ballers will even be able to attack. I think the zealot should get a ranged attack if you spam the attack command 5 times within a second.
You can add random shit to every fucking unit, and it will increase the "depth." You guys have a weird fascination for what you know, whether it makes any fucking sense or not. I enjoy good micro. Good reaver micro is something to behold. I would just like to think that you wouldn't have to search through tl.net to learn how to micro units. Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
You guys want difficulty, but, ironically, blizzard felt inclined to make this game a lot easier. Maybe if some of you guys were better, yourself, blizzard wouldn't have to do this for money and for the sake of the competitive scene. Add more difficulty. Keep adding to it so I can only watch Korean tournaments. Everyone is biased. The only sure thing is that is what would happen.
I seriously don't get why you don't want to add these mechanics to the Carrier. It's not like it's something you have to do or else it won't be able to do anything. It's an addition rather than a exchange.
With this mechanic, people can still choose to A-move the carrier and let it do its thing or they can choose to micro it. Even micro-ing it isn't a full on advantage as you are choosing to "babysit" your carriers instead of being able to do another thing. There's still a trade-off. With that being said, more decision making and strategy is also added. You have to ask "How do I spend my APM? Do I spend all my time during this engagement micro-ing my carriers so they will be used with maximum efficiency? Do I let them just attack and kill as much as they can without micro so I can macro back at home and just be ready for the next engagement? Do I do a little bit of both? How much of each? 50-50? 60-40? These are the types of questions you could ask with adding this feature.
This is why so many people are really pushing for this. It adds both to the mechanics aspect and the decision making aspect.
I want more micro to Carrier and other units, but I do agree with playa in one thing: "vulture patrol", "interceptors not returning in carrier when stop is used" and things like this are program bugs. You can't ask from developer team to include them in game like that. But, they can incorporate them in legal way by transforming bugs to features.
For example, instead of vulture being able to fire and move using patrol key, he could have ability "Throw grenade" on cool down that is same as attack speed. This ability should "Throw grenade without slowing down vulture". When vulture attacks, cool down is triggered as well. But, if you move, and manually press throw grenade, vulture will not slow down but it would fire up. In this case we have micro intensive unit, and its use is clear to anyone, without need to dig deep on net and try to find out exploits.
Same thing is with carrier. Why not introduce auto cast ability "Dock interceptors" that should "Return interceptors in carrier for repair when attack is completed and while Carrier is moving. If Carrier stops interceptors will dock with carrier anyway". Better do this than ask for user to press stop and than move. This way we have ability that requires same micro and is clear to everyone what will happen.
So, I'm for legal stuff that requires micro. It is not fair that I and someone who has 200+ APM can get same out of units. It is like playing with Jordan 1v1 and telling him he can only jump high as much as I do.
I wouldn't mind every unit to have same logic as "Throw grenade" example on vulture. It would attack regularly if it is not babysit, otherwise you could kite a bit and get some extra advantage. That is if you have enough APM to micro and macro.
I can only speak for myself when I say that while your vulture suggestion does add mirco, but I actually prefer it not being so obvious.
An advantage of not making it obvious is that when you start playing the game, you find that specific units act in a specific way. Then you go and watch a tournament like the OSL and go "How the hell are they doing that?" Then you realize that there is more to this game than meets the eye. If you're interested enough, then you start exploring more and more into these little things that you didn't know existed and try them out yourself. (Seriously not a big problem given that we have these thread, we have wikipedia and we can even chat people up during/after the game to discover these things.) You further realize that it's not just as simple as knowing how they do it. It also takes practice to do it perfectly and are even more amazed at the time and effort pro players put into the game. If you aren't interested enough, then you just play these units on the obvious aspects where all you have to do is either attack, focus fire or retreat and you never have to think about using the added feature of attacking without needing to stop (as with the vulture). You'll still have fun, but you just won't get maximum efficiency without learning it. Again. I am not speaking that everyone prefers it this way. I'm saying I like it this way and is a rational way of justifying it not being obvious.
As seen in the video, I am actually leaning towards saying that the SC2 carrier is a glitchy unit in itself. It's just that the glitch is actually disadvantagous to the person using the carrier. Even within leash range 1 interceptor actually goes back to the carrier when moving away a little. I think that's a huge glitch. In addition, as stated in the video, what is the purpose of having a leash range when units die so quickly and you just have to bring your carrier back to attack range to engage again? So even if you're a person who believes that glitches shouldn't be in the game, you still have to admit that there is something wrong with the SC2 carrier and Blizzard has to fix that.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Should link this in op to show blizzard and anyone else reading the thread how easy it would be to implement.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
amazing how you manage to do it in such a short time
yeah great writeup and i generally agree that great micro should have great rewards it both makes it exiting for fans to watch and hightens the skill gap.
a few issues i see from blizzards part thoough it is not very intuitive if you aere not a sc/bw player, the same goes formuta stacking for instance, I don't think blizzard would implement something that does not make sense for players.
but where should the line be between pampering to the new or pampering to the old thats is a hard decision, but for my personal taste i would love for Blizz to implement more hardcore icro mechanicseven if they dont make sense just to have something cool to improve on and to make the spectators / caster go "omfg that was amazing"
On September 18 2012 15:26 MasterCynical wrote: Dustin browder's response on battlenet indicates openess to change, but theres an undertone that he doesn't like this. Maybe in just being pessimistic since blizzard has really annoyed me over the past few years.
But i really hope this change makes it, it would make carriers alot more entertaining to watch in esports
I read it as "If we abso-fucking-loutely have to change it then we may, may consider it, maybe" (but only if we keep harping on almost indefinitely) I do not take it as particularly positive except "yeah I saw it, so?"
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
amazing how you manage to do it in such a short time
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Incredible.. So this is super easy to fix.. Is this good news or bad news, though?
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Incredible.. So this is super easy to fix.. Is this good news or bad news, though?
Both... it shows that it can be done. But it also shows that it most likely will not be done, cause Blizzard doesnt want to.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
So a random guy on the internet made this small change in a couple of hours... well, thinking about blizzard time it sounds like we can expect blizzard to change it in the next 2 or 3 months then :-)
It took them over a year to get a chatfunction. Dont hold your hopes up. Maybe we can get it for the second expansion if were lucky.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
So a random guy on the internet made this small change in a couple of hours... well, thinking about blizzard time it sounds like we can expect blizzard to change it in the next 2 or 3 months then :-)
It took them over a year to get a chatfunction. Dont hold your hopes up. Maybe we can get it for the second expansion if were lucky.
We have to be very lucky... they are still working on watching replays together, clan functions and tournament support.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Incredible.. So this is super easy to fix.. Is this good news or bad news, though?
it wasn't super easy to do through the map editor, but on Blizzard's end with the source code. pretty easy yea. i simply created my own memory space where i stored the carrier and their interceptors and whenever a carrier was ordered to attack it checked the range. if under 12. ordered all it's interceptors to attack the new target. creating and populating the variables was more difficult than the two simple checks and issue order triggers.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
God that model of the carrier is so fucking good > I don't like the new one (which incidentally is the original "tempest" model from before SC2 came out) Sigh.
Blizzard's response is actually pretty bad. Right NOW is the moment to implement ANY new mechanic, wether it's a tweak to old units or a new unit altogether. Once you have all these new mechanics in game, then you can start thinking about balance. It's silly to balance anything before every mechanic is implemented in a game, and i am sure they are well aware of it.
Say the new Hots stuff makes protoss able to fight Infestor/Broodlord without the need for a lucky vortex...well then if you buff the carrier on top of that, lategame pvz will be heavily p favoured with a better carrier, and you need to restart the balance process.
Long story short: Browder indirectly said nop, ain't gonna happen. Which fucking sucks.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Players like you who are only interested in positioning, a move and easy casting is what make sc2 too casual and boring at times. There are too little detailed mechanics that are missing which separate the pros from the semi pros.
If you are too lazy to know all these little tricks, you are probably too lazy to be even a semi pros. Maybe you simply find excuses for your failures to win games by thumbing people down.
Call me biased, but I would have been in the finals of the last WCG online tournament for BW if I simply knew how to exploit the carrier. I couldn't care less about micro tricks determining who wins games. Until everyone can know how to utilize units in ways that are anything but intuitive, I don't get it. You guys really need to stfu. If you want to make it BW, then go all the way. Bring back the macro. Bring back the tricks that only the old schoolers will know. You guys can't get over shit. Had to bring back the carrier. O no can't do without that. Bring back all the BW units. Fuck off.
you should probably stick to being a 'pro' in angry birds or some other casual game that doesn't require a lot of mechanics and nuances.
You should probably stick to not posting unless it's on a comedian forum. Why stop at adding back the carrier mechanics. You guys are smart and know what makes a game good. Add some random element to every unit. Show some imagination for christ sake. I don't think stalkers should be able to shoot unless you tell it to go in a circle first, and then you have to tell it to hold position and shift queue the attack. Only the most uber elite ballers will even be able to attack. I think the zealot should get a ranged attack if you spam the attack command 5 times within a second.
You can add random shit to every fucking unit, and it will increase the "depth." You guys have a weird fascination for what you know, whether it makes any fucking sense or not. I enjoy good micro. Good reaver micro is something to behold. I would just like to think that you wouldn't have to search through tl.net to learn how to micro units. Who the fuck is ever supposed to realize you're supposed to use patrol for vultures? Who is supposed to know you should attack your own building with carriers and etc, etc. It's so much bs. If it's not accessible, it's a joke.
You guys want difficulty, but, ironically, blizzard felt inclined to make this game a lot easier. Maybe if some of you guys were better, yourself, blizzard wouldn't have to do this for money and for the sake of the competitive scene. Add more difficulty. Keep adding to it so I can only watch Korean tournaments. Everyone is biased. The only sure thing is that is what would happen.
I seriously don't get why you don't want to add these mechanics to the Carrier. It's not like it's something you have to do or else it won't be able to do anything. It's an addition rather than a exchange.
With this mechanic, people can still choose to A-move the carrier and let it do its thing or they can choose to micro it. Even micro-ing it isn't a full on advantage as you are choosing to "babysit" your carriers instead of being able to do another thing. There's still a trade-off. With that being said, more decision making and strategy is also added. You have to ask "How do I spend my APM? Do I spend all my time during this engagement micro-ing my carriers so they will be used with maximum efficiency? Do I let them just attack and kill as much as they can without micro so I can macro back at home and just be ready for the next engagement? Do I do a little bit of both? How much of each? 50-50? 60-40? These are the types of questions you could ask with adding this feature.
This is why so many people are really pushing for this. It adds both to the mechanics aspect and the decision making aspect.
I want more micro to Carrier and other units, but I do agree with playa in one thing: "vulture patrol", "interceptors not returning in carrier when stop is used" and things like this are program bugs. You can't ask from developer team to include them in game like that. But, they can incorporate them in legal way by transforming bugs to features.
For example, instead of vulture being able to fire and move using patrol key, he could have ability "Throw grenade" on cool down that is same as attack speed. This ability should "Throw grenade without slowing down vulture". When vulture attacks, cool down is triggered as well. But, if you move, and manually press throw grenade, vulture will not slow down but it would fire up. In this case we have micro intensive unit, and its use is clear to anyone, without need to dig deep on net and try to find out exploits.
Same thing is with carrier. Why not introduce auto cast ability "Dock interceptors" that should "Return interceptors in carrier for repair when attack is completed and while Carrier is moving. If Carrier stops interceptors will dock with carrier anyway". Better do this than ask for user to press stop and than move. This way we have ability that requires same micro and is clear to everyone what will happen.
So, I'm for legal stuff that requires micro. It is not fair that I and someone who has 200+ APM can get same out of units. It is like playing with Jordan 1v1 and telling him he can only jump high as much as I do.
I wouldn't mind every unit to have same logic as "Throw grenade" example on vulture. It would attack regularly if it is not babysit, otherwise you could kite a bit and get some extra advantage. That is if you have enough APM to micro and macro.
I can only speak for myself when I say that while your vulture suggestion does add mirco, but I actually prefer it not being so obvious.
An advantage of not making it obvious is that when you start playing the game, you find that specific units act in a specific way. Then you go and watch a tournament like the OSL and go "How the hell are they doing that?" Then you realize that there is more to this game than meets the eye. If you're interested enough, then you start exploring more and more into these little things that you didn't know existed and try them out yourself. (Seriously not a big problem given that we have these thread, we have wikipedia and we can even chat people up during/after the game to discover these things.) You further realize that it's not just as simple as knowing how they do it. It also takes practice to do it perfectly and are even more amazed at the time and effort pro players put into the game. If you aren't interested enough, then you just play these units on the obvious aspects where all you have to do is either attack, focus fire or retreat and you never have to think about using the added feature of attacking without needing to stop (as with the vulture). You'll still have fun, but you just won't get maximum efficiency without learning it. Again. I am not speaking that everyone prefers it this way. I'm saying I like it this way and is a rational way of justifying it not being obvious.
As seen in the video, I am actually leaning towards saying that the SC2 carrier is a glitchy unit in itself. It's just that the glitch is actually disadvantagous to the person using the carrier. Even within leash range 1 interceptor actually goes back to the carrier when moving away a little. I think that's a huge glitch. In addition, as stated in the video, what is the purpose of having a leash range when units die so quickly and you just have to bring your carrier back to attack range to engage again? So even if you're a person who believes that glitches shouldn't be in the game, you still have to admit that there is something wrong with the SC2 carrier and Blizzard has to fix that.
Of course I agree that something is wrong with unit that is hardly even used in game. I just wanted to say that ppl shouldn't ask for bugs found in BW to be included in SC2. We should look into what was the benefit of those bugs, and how can they be carried in SC2.
Idea to allow interceptors to stay out of carrier and let them attack more quickly if you babysit carriers has the most potential. This gives user a choice, should he leave interceptors out and attack more quickly, or let them repair, just like NonY said in first place. And that could be achieved with new autocast ability.
But we have to take a look and see what are all reasons for not having carrier in games so often? Is it that all races have good anti air (don't think so, since same is for Colossus, and we see them a lot)? Is it that some units have good area of effect spells that kill interceptors too easy (Than introduce some teleport ability to allow carrier to save interceptors manually)? Is it that some units overlap, but are easier to use (Colossus)?
I just ask myself even if we introduce all what NonY suggester, would we still have more use of carriers in pro matches? I just hope so (:
^Its not the fans are asking to bring back those bugs and glitches that accidentally arose during the playtesting of BW, its that those small tweaks just added an extra dimension of plays in the game.
As someone noted with the decisions of Vultures.
You can definitely try to A-move across the map with them as a traditional buffer units in front of its behemoth armored brothers. But you can also use its patrol micro to quickly spew up an attack to a specific target.
Same can be applied to Mutalisks and together because of the the letter 'P' is very far away on your keyboard from your usual hotkeys, you need a very fast reflexes to even dare of trying them out.
In the case of Mutalisk micro, you can totally just A-move up a certain target to eliminate it and in the case of Mutalisks vs Scourge battle, you can also do the Hold position once you get a certain distance away from the creatures that utilized Bin Laden's tactics. But you can also do Patrol micro that gets you to a certain place and be able to shoot with one single button instead of 2.
Now there are various other tit bits with the Mutalisks too.
1. There are the stacking with one units selected with it. That's not the only way to stack them, you can easily have all 12 clicked on a building/gas/minerals. And the stacking with unit takes more focus to manage. For example, you select them with an larvae, you have to keep making sure that one specific larvae isn't morphed into something else OR re-hotkey the 11 Mutas with a brand new unit. Additionally, if you place it with an Overlord, you must make sure to return the Ovie back so that if won't just run to the enemies' base. THIS ALSO APPLLIED TO CORSAIRS AND WRAITH!
2. You can either one A + Select a unit to specifically snipe it OR you can splash the entire radius of attack with hold position.
Now I've only explained mostly 1 unit (there are many more usage with Corsairs and Wraith). But it is tiny micro decisions like the aforementioned lists that truly transformed BW into a nail-biting game.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Well that didn't take long. Now just stick it into the beta and see what testers do with it.
Of course, Browder won't do it because it's an admission of failure.
Also, I must say this is a much cooler Carrier skin. The SC2 carrier seems so weedy.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
You're a hero MavercK
Indeed. I so hope that blizzard will listen to Nony and add this and while they are at it some other things for other units as well.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Nice carrier model, I thought this was the one used in HoTS . Good job there.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Well that didn't take long. Now just stick it into the beta and see what testers do with it.
Of course, Browder won't do it because it's an admission of failure.
Also, I must say this is a much cooler Carrier skin. The SC2 carrier seems so weedy.
Every single patch to a game is an admission of failure. If you seriously think it's his own pride that's stopping him from implementing this then you are badly mistaken.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Well that didn't take long. Now just stick it into the beta and see what testers do with it.
Of course, Browder won't do it because it's an admission of failure.
Also, I must say this is a much cooler Carrier skin. The SC2 carrier seems so weedy.
Every single patch to a game is an admission of failure. If you seriously think it's his own pride that's stopping him from implementing this then you are badly mistaken.
"BW is still great game. If you like BW, go play that instead." - D.B.
All those changes have been fundamentally, just stats changes and abilities removal or addition. None of them truly correct the mechanics in which the units functions. Currently what are we trying to get across is that we want he carriers to act in BW's manner.
That being said, since DB have already insinuated that he wants to create an absolutely new game devoid of BW's characteristics. You can bet yours ass that he won't even take a good look at the trait(s) that made the 'predecessor' great.
Proving that implementing it is not to hard. They will probably have to nerf the carrier slightly otherwise though.
However even with these changes it feels like the carrier could still be manageable. Zerg will for instance have vipers with 9 range abduct which should counter this mechanic, specially since Vipers are significantly faster. Terran will of course still have vikings with range 9 and they will with superior speed still be relatively effective.
And as Tyler pointed out that there is reward for using this micro there is also a risk, specially against moving targets, if misjudge the slightest you will lose all your DPS.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Quite impressive; it further shows that the community is always ahead of the developers. On a side note I'd kill for that carrier model.
On September 18 2012 22:31 theSAiNT wrote: Of course, Browder won't do it because it's an admission of failure.
Browder admittet errors in the past. He is a professional. SC2 is not a school project where a team leader's stubborness and inability to admit errors messes up the success. It's a multi million dollar business.
On September 18 2012 15:05 Quexana wrote: Blizzard has heard you! Someone posted a thread on Battle.net's forums linking to LiquidNony's video. A Blizzard developer posting under the name Rock (believed to be D. Browders Screen name) replied in this way:
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
Is it lip service? Or could it be the beginning of Blizzard taking a serious look at redesigning the Carrier? Judge for yourself.
Even if they don't keep the carrier, it would be so extremely awesome to get a little bit more micro out of other units. Maybe Blizzard can find a way to increase the micro potential on any one of the many other units in the game. I'd love to see the carrier stay and get tweaked, but I'd also love to see other units get similar treatment.
I think prime candidates are:
- colossus - reaper (it has been getting stuff) - oracle (they are trying things... need more work probably) - carrier - swarm hosts (I think they probably already have enough potential as you can micro the hosts and the locusts separately but in tune with each other, but we'll see)
There has been a number of comments stating how the micro aspect of keeping the interceptors out was a "little known broodwar glitch". If blizzard were to impliment this it could end up being very tricky to "teach" newbies that this function exists.
So i was thinking that a soloution for this could be impliment this mechanic in the form of an upgrade (replacing graviton catapult). With it being something researchable, newbies would be more inclined to try and get it to work. Also with it being an upgrade more information about it could be included in the in game "help files".
Description: Allows interceptors to stay out while the carrier is moving.
Functionality: "youtube.com/watch?v=1Rqx8s2qKXM" In this video by Liquid'Nony(tyler) He aptly describes the differences in the micro-ability of carriers in broodwar and SC2. The targeting issues he raises should be fixed and would help quite a bit.
However he brings up another point about the interceptors "Staying out" when the carrier moves out of "leash range". This is another great feature of the broodwar carrier, but it's a trick thats "little known" outside of the broodwar pro scene. So it raises the question how do you make an "top tier" un-noticable skill available to newbies and the like. A simple soloution is to make it an upgrade from the fleet beacon. By having it as an upgrade, a newbie can look at the button, press it and then try and figure out how to use it. Additionally having it as an upgrade lets you include more information about its specific uses in the in-game help guide.
Graphically: I'd ike to see a graphic showing the interceptors along side the carrier or in some sort of formation while it's moving.
Alternatives: Having it as a toggle effect, While active the interceptors are out/stay out (Which would be quite intresting to see how it would play out with things like thor missiles hitting the carrier and splashing the interceptors while they are in formation.) Un-toggled returns to carrier.
this is interceptors changing target in the leash range (between 8 and 12) im working on interceptors not redocking with the carrier while it moves right now. should have a second video out in an hour or two (depends how much i suck)
this is on SC2BW test map, which is why the sounds and model is different.
Quite impressive; it further shows that the community is always ahead of the developers. On a side note I'd kill for that carrier model.
Using a map editor made by Blizzard developers, for a game made by Blizzard developers... Yes, the community will be ahead in terms of content generation, but you're only using the tools that the developers have created for you to work with.
On September 18 2012 15:05 Quexana wrote: Blizzard has heard you! Someone posted a thread on Battle.net's forums linking to LiquidNony's video. A Blizzard developer posting under the name Rock (believed to be D. Browders Screen name) replied in this way:
We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it.
Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
Is it lip service? Or could it be the beginning of Blizzard taking a serious look at redesigning the Carrier? Judge for yourself.
Even if they don't keep the carrier, it would be so extremely awesome to get a little bit more micro out of other units. Maybe Blizzard can find a way to increase the micro potential on any one of the many other units in the game. I'd love to see the carrier stay and get tweaked, but I'd also love to see other units get similar treatment.
I think prime candidates are:
- colossus - reaper (it has been getting stuff) - oracle (they are trying things... need more work probably) - carrier - swarm hosts (I think they probably already have enough potential as you can micro the hosts and the locusts separately but in tune with each other, but we'll see)
Agreed! Units on the surface should be able to be used by all, but there should be an added depth, where you can maximize a units ability through micro. Right now, the carrier is really a 1A unit with hardly any micro. This carrier change would add the necessary depth to it.
It's the game that draws gamers into playing the game, but it's the depth that keeps them. The same can be stated about watching the game. The reason you get ewwws and awwws out of a crowd is not because it's easy to do, it's because you just seen someone pull of the sickest marine split ever. We watch in complete aww, because we wish we could pull it off, not because its easy to do.
I think the solution would be to convince DB somehow that these changes need to be made without mentioning at all that it was used in BW, bypassing his anti-BW tendencies.
This is probably one of my most favorite threads about StarCraft ever. When I played Brood War, the Carrier was my go to unit for everything. Now, I'm always incredibly sheepish about relying on StarGate tech at all. They definitely need to at least tinker with bringing back the Carrier to HotS in Brood War strength or at least utility.
On September 19 2012 01:02 Archybaldie wrote: There has been a number of comments stating how the micro aspect of keeping the interceptors out was a "little known broodwar glitch". If blizzard were to impliment this it could end up being very tricky to "teach" newbies that this function exists.
So i was thinking that a soloution for this could be impliment this mechanic in the form of an upgrade (replacing graviton catapult). With it being something researchable, newbies would be more inclined to try and get it to work. Also with it being an upgrade more information about it could be included in the in game "help files".
Description: Allows interceptors to stay out while the carrier is moving.
Functionality: "youtube.com/watch?v=1Rqx8s2qKXM" In this video by Liquid'Nony(tyler) He aptly describes the differences in the micro-ability of carriers in broodwar and SC2. The targeting issues he raises should be fixed and would help quite a bit.
However he brings up another point about the interceptors "Staying out" when the carrier moves out of "leash range". This is another great feature of the broodwar carrier, but it's a trick thats "little known" outside of the broodwar pro scene. So it raises the question how do you make an "top tier" un-noticable skill available to newbies and the like. A simple soloution is to make it an upgrade from the fleet beacon. By having it as an upgrade, a newbie can look at the button, press it and then try and figure out how to use it. Additionally having it as an upgrade lets you include more information about its specific uses in the in-game help guide.
Graphically: I'd ike to see a graphic showing the interceptors along side the carrier or in some sort of formation while it's moving.
Alternatives: Having it as a toggle effect, While active the interceptors are out/stay out (Which would be quite intresting to see how it would play out with things like thor missiles hitting the carrier and splashing the interceptors while they are in formation.) Un-toggled returns to carrier.
There's no need to turn microbility into an upgrade anymore than turning magic boxing or unit splitting into an upgrade. If the issue is 'little known' the solution is quite simple. Blizzard already has a bunch of training maps designed to teach newbies the fundamentals of SC2. They just need to add in a series of scenarios entitled "Cool Micro Tricks" or something (assuming they add a bunch more of this sort of microbility back in). Have helpful text or voice over explaining how to do it. Easy, simple, done. If the newbie can't be bothered, that's on them.
On September 19 2012 01:02 Archybaldie wrote: There has been a number of comments stating how the micro aspect of keeping the interceptors out was a "little known broodwar glitch". If blizzard were to impliment this it could end up being very tricky to "teach" newbies that this function exists.
So i was thinking that a soloution for this could be impliment this mechanic in the form of an upgrade (replacing graviton catapult). With it being something researchable, newbies would be more inclined to try and get it to work. Also with it being an upgrade more information about it could be included in the in game "help files".
Description: Allows interceptors to stay out while the carrier is moving.
Functionality: "youtube.com/watch?v=1Rqx8s2qKXM" In this video by Liquid'Nony(tyler) He aptly describes the differences in the micro-ability of carriers in broodwar and SC2. The targeting issues he raises should be fixed and would help quite a bit.
However he brings up another point about the interceptors "Staying out" when the carrier moves out of "leash range". This is another great feature of the broodwar carrier, but it's a trick thats "little known" outside of the broodwar pro scene. So it raises the question how do you make an "top tier" un-noticable skill available to newbies and the like. A simple soloution is to make it an upgrade from the fleet beacon. By having it as an upgrade, a newbie can look at the button, press it and then try and figure out how to use it. Additionally having it as an upgrade lets you include more information about its specific uses in the in-game help guide.
Graphically: I'd ike to see a graphic showing the interceptors along side the carrier or in some sort of formation while it's moving.
Alternatives: Having it as a toggle effect, While active the interceptors are out/stay out (Which would be quite intresting to see how it would play out with things like thor missiles hitting the carrier and splashing the interceptors while they are in formation.) Un-toggled returns to carrier.
There's no need to turn microbility into an upgrade anymore than turning magic boxing or unit splitting into an upgrade. If the issue is 'little known' the solution is quite simple. Blizzard already has a bunch of training maps designed to teach newbies the fundamentals of SC2. They just need to add in a series of scenarios entitled "Cool Micro Tricks" or something (assuming they add a bunch more of this sort of microbility back in). Have helpful text or voice over explaining how to do it. Easy, simple, done. If the newbie can't be bothered, that's on them.
That is entirely a very fair point. (just to clarify though the re-targeting should be in as a default its just the interceptors staying out that i was suggesting to possibly be an upgrade)
The main reason i suggested this is going by blizzards design policy they seem to be trying to make things "very accessable" to lower levels. The thought process behind it was with an upgrade it would give us what we want, But keep it as something "very accessable" to lower levels.
Also thinking of alternative ways it could be implimented like possibly having it as a toggle (similar to seige) instead of keeping it moving to keep the interceptors out could add some other dynamics to the way carriers would play. Like if you leave them out and they all get emp'd thus weakening the interceptors or stormed etc. This would seem to follow blizzards design policy too and possibly add some more dynamics to the unit.
Edit: It could be said that this would make it too easy to use carriers. But on the other hand you're presented a choice of do you leave your interceptors out for better burst damage. Or do you keep them protected from things like thor splash/emp's Which could in turn increase the difficulty of using carriers slightly.
But anyway i think we all agree that the micro changes to the carrier in whatever form they come are needed. (I love the carrier so much im glad its currently back in)
I just like thinking outside the box! but it can be said that i go way too far outside the box lol. (i should probabaly go lay down or something im way to overly excited at the moment lol)
On September 19 2012 01:02 Archybaldie wrote: There has been a number of comments stating how the micro aspect of keeping the interceptors out was a "little known broodwar glitch". If blizzard were to impliment this it could end up being very tricky to "teach" newbies that this function exists.
So i was thinking that a soloution for this could be impliment this mechanic in the form of an upgrade (replacing graviton catapult). With it being something researchable, newbies would be more inclined to try and get it to work. Also with it being an upgrade more information about it could be included in the in game "help files".
Description: Allows interceptors to stay out while the carrier is moving.
Functionality: "youtube.com/watch?v=1Rqx8s2qKXM" In this video by Liquid'Nony(tyler) He aptly describes the differences in the micro-ability of carriers in broodwar and SC2. The targeting issues he raises should be fixed and would help quite a bit.
However he brings up another point about the interceptors "Staying out" when the carrier moves out of "leash range". This is another great feature of the broodwar carrier, but it's a trick thats "little known" outside of the broodwar pro scene. So it raises the question how do you make an "top tier" un-noticable skill available to newbies and the like. A simple soloution is to make it an upgrade from the fleet beacon. By having it as an upgrade, a newbie can look at the button, press it and then try and figure out how to use it. Additionally having it as an upgrade lets you include more information about its specific uses in the in-game help guide.
Graphically: I'd ike to see a graphic showing the interceptors along side the carrier or in some sort of formation while it's moving.
Alternatives: Having it as a toggle effect, While active the interceptors are out/stay out (Which would be quite intresting to see how it would play out with things like thor missiles hitting the carrier and splashing the interceptors while they are in formation.) Un-toggled returns to carrier.
There's no need to turn microbility into an upgrade anymore than turning magic boxing or unit splitting into an upgrade. If the issue is 'little known' the solution is quite simple. Blizzard already has a bunch of training maps designed to teach newbies the fundamentals of SC2. They just need to add in a series of scenarios entitled "Cool Micro Tricks" or something (assuming they add a bunch more of this sort of microbility back in). Have helpful text or voice over explaining how to do it. Easy, simple, done. If the newbie can't be bothered, that's on them.
May I but-in this conversation a bit with a thought regarding the Carrier upgrades.
I agree, microbility should not go into an upgrade. If BW micro for Carriers makes it into HOTS, it should be there by default.
If there was an upgrade for the Carrier/Interceptor, I think it should be bonus damage to shields (not too much, maybe just +1 or +2 damage affecting shields only). Spicing up the PvP matchup without changing anyhting for PvT or PvZ. This might make them a counter to mass Colossi in the stargate tech path, while not making them too overpowered against everything and become the new Colossus 2.0.
Call it the "Field-phasic Armaments" upgrade or something.
I think the only reason that this isn't in sc2 is because blizz wants to avoid micro "tricks". Stutter-step and magic box ect. are simple to understand even though they can be difficult to do. This is more of a unit specific mechanic and many players might ask "why does it work like that?"
This is just my theory on why blizz didn't include it but I totally agree with mr.tyler and everyone else.
On September 17 2012 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote: Continuous deployment of interceptors while moving I think is really really cool but is the easiest thing to classify as a buggy behavior. I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME. The protoss player got the carriers knowing they'll be sufficiently effective ONLY IF he can pull off this micro. The enemy's response is not to bang his head against this really strong micro but rather to split the protoss's attention, punishing him for having tunnel vision on his carriers. Someone is gonna make a mistake and miscalculate and that's how the game should be decided.
If the continuous deployment of interceptors ISN'T in the game, then interceptor healing is pretty much just a straight buff. There isn't really any tension if both things aren't in the game.
See, concepts like 'tension' are beyond a brain like Dustin Browder's, I think stuff of that level doesn't even cross his mind.
I bet if he reads this, he'll start wondering and ask himself... "Which part of SC2 covers this tension Tyler talks about, lasers or rocks? What should we do to get more tension.... Hm, let's buff rocks."
Why does everybody hate on Browder and Blizzard in threads like these? Blizzard gains nothing by making a fundamentally competitive game casual friendly, so that doesn't work. Browder has no reason to make a bad game, and he IS a high up in Blizzard, so he has at least an above average brain. That means that he makes non-retarded decisions based on the knowledge he has on hand at the time of the decision being made. Cool down for a bit and seriously put yourself in his shoes before you judge him so harshly. Most of us, in his place in his experiences, would have made a lot of the same decisions.
You just said that: 1) he has no motivation to make a casual friendly game by lowering skill cap 2) he has no reason to make a bad game
and yet he: 1) made a casual friendly game while lowering skill cap 2) made a bad game
which enforces my claim that he's incompetent.
I understand that most people would've made similar decisions, but at the same time I'm 99% sure I would've made a better game if I was in charge. And I can list like 10 people from TL who would also do a better job than Browder.
BroodWar isn't such a terribly deep game to understand. Dustin Browder either wasn't interested enough to try to grasp the magic of it (to be able to re-create it), or he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the real essence of BW's magic.
Thank you for making this video and explaining BW mechanics to the SC2 community. I know this probably took a long time to put together and I don't want to sound ungrateful, but do you think you could discuss corsair micro vs phoenix "micro" and the tendency for air units to "drift" in BW.
This was an important part of the mutalisk patrol move micro which has been completely removed in SC2, and the corsair vs mutalisk micro was some of the most tense and exciting things about pro BW games. I think this advances your discussion because (I hope I'm not alone here) I found the corsair micro to be more challenging than muta micro, but the corsair micro was more rewarding when done over a cannon for example. Mutas were also able to dart in, unload and dart out which made muta stacking and one shotting marines very exciting to watch, but this is almost completely absent in SC2 because mutas need to stop to fire and don't "drift" or maintain speed while being microed.
And I miss Chinese triangle vs patrol move debates cropping up everywhere, but I don't know if it's nearly as important without scourge.
Acdtually I think the issue with interceptors staying out is more lack of visibility. It has been an issue in the past(visibility or marines behind thors was once cited by DB).
If instead of flying under the carrier the interceptors would instead circle in their cloudformation around the carrier(without attacking of course), it would be very visible to spectators and the enemy. It could even create another possibility: caster units sneaking up on carriers and destroying interceptors with fungal/storm.
edit: Isn´t the new engine the reason why you can micro banshees against marines by shooting backwards manually? Correct me if I´m wrong, but isn´t banshee micro going to suffer if you introduce everything needed for moving shot again? I am beginning to get sick of this whole "the colossus is bad, therefore all of SC2 is bad" Does nobody like the baneling? Or the queen? Don´t destructible rocks give the player who builds units early on an advantage? Rocks may have been used gimmicky at release, but mapmakers use them on pretty much every map in ladder and torunament mappools. Don´t act like it´s all bad now.
If anyone is still interested, I might have successfully created a decent approximation of the 'continuous deployment' micro ability purely within the data editor. I don't know all the details of how this particular micro feature worked, but here is how my attempt goes:
- when you issue an attack command from range 8 or less, a new button will light up on your carrier's command card (continuous deployment - hotkeyed to D) - as long as the carrier does not stop moving, the button will stay lit. But if you stop, it goes grey. Issuing a new attack command while the interceptors are out will relight the button if you are within range 8 - pressing D will recall your interceptors. But if you attempt to attack from between range 14 and 8, all 8 interceptors will be deployed almost instantly at the target - but attempting to attack from within 8 range causes the carrier to launch interceptors normally - you are still able to switch targets from within leash range for the deployed interceptors
Once my SC2 client finishes patching, I'll update Bizarro Carrier with my newest attempt at this. I don't have the ability to make videos or upload to youtube, but if this actually works, and anyone wishes to do so, feel free.
On September 19 2012 07:10 Mataza wrote: Acdtually I think the issue with interceptors staying out is more lack of visibility. It has been an issue in the past(visibility or marines behind thors was once cited by DB).
If instead of flying under the carrier the interceptors would instead circle in their cloudformation around the carrier(without attacking of course), it would be very visible to spectators and the enemy. It could even create another possibility: caster units sneaking up on carriers and destroying interceptors with fungal/storm.
edit: Isn´t the new engine the reason why you can micro banshees against marines by shooting backwards manually? Correct me if I´m wrong, but isn´t banshee micro going to suffer if you introduce everything needed for moving shot again? I am beginning to get sick of this whole "the colossus is bad, therefore all of SC2 is bad" Does nobody like the baneling? Or the queen? Don´t destructible rocks give the player who builds units early on an advantage? Rocks may have been used gimmicky at release, but mapmakers use them on pretty much every map in ladder and torunament mappools. Don´t act like it´s all bad now.
I agree, too many people just want to hate and rant without thinking first and looking how great the game actually is, it is just that most people are utterly nostalgic and wont let anyone say a bad thing about their game ever, even if only saying that the new game is better.
On September 19 2012 07:29 DaRkVsLiGhT wrote: muta micro in bw doesn't feel the same in sc2 according to jaedong
muta micro is sc2 in barely micro lol, at least compared to bw muta micro now that was amazing
Thors nullified the advantage of BW style muta stacking. It spawned a new form of control in the form of magic box. To some extent it is micro but much less impressive for spectators and less generally useful.
The reality is more nuanced of course. Thors alone didn't kill muta stacking. Terran in BW had an arguably more powerful anti muta aoe spell: irradiate. Muta stacking was strong until the Terran teched to science vessels. Interestingly, the 'hard counter' to muta stacking could be partially countered in turn by splitting your mutas after irradiate was cast, a micro intensive task that became harder with more mutas and more vessels around. I would never expect this level of depth from SC2 though.
That aside, it was early thors which killed muta stacking. In BW there was a window before science vessals when muta stacking was effective. In SC2, thors appear so early that the window is small to non existent.
Did Browder understand all this when he removed muta stacking from the game? I don't see any reason to think so.
well there are lot of things that were amazing in bw that weren't implemented in sc2. i don't see your point in highlighting one unit considering it comes specifically from the race you play and not even mentioning any other units.
On September 19 2012 10:05 j.k.l wrote: well there are lot of things that were amazing in bw that weren't implemented in sc2. i don't see your point in highlighting one unit considering it comes specifically from the race you play and not even mentioning any other units.
On September 19 2012 10:05 j.k.l wrote: well there are lot of things that were amazing in bw that weren't implemented in sc2. i don't see your point in highlighting one unit considering it comes specifically from the race you play and not even mentioning any other units.
If you focus on one unit at a time it is much more clear and focused. This thread would be very confusing if he went through a multitude of units and how each should be changed. He decided to focus on one single unit that he thought could be fixed in a dramatic fashion. Whether you agree or disagree with his points, it makes absolute sense that he should focus on one single unit.
It also makes sense that this thread is about a unit from his own race. Since he was Protoss in BW and SC2 he has used their units many more times than someone who plays another race. I would much rather hear about Carrier Micro from a Protoss player rather than a Zerg player (Though I would also be interested in hearing how the other races' players felt when facing them.)
If there's a single component that needs to be incorporated it's target switching within leash range. Without that, leash range is all but pointless, and the carrier's attack is just a very, very complicated animation compared to other units. And this wouldn't be a bug exploit because the carrier already moves out of range of enemies while the interceptors stay in range. This fix just makes it not-useless because it can STAY out of range, just like a tank, brood lord, or colossus.
Like many on here, I was amazed at the idea of instantaneous launch being micro-based vs research based. It's the best example I've seen yet of what makes a good BW mechanic. I wasn't a BW competitive player, and I appreciate that attack, hold, and patrol don't produce wildly different results in SCII. However, I agree with some other posters that micro-based glitches from BW can be incorporated as micro-based abilities in SCII. And none of it needs to be a mystery to new players given the extensive tooltips, tutorials, and achievements that exist in SCII.
On September 19 2012 07:29 DaRkVsLiGhT wrote: muta micro in bw doesn't feel the same in sc2 according to jaedong
muta micro is sc2 in barely micro lol, at least compared to bw muta micro now that was amazing
Thors nullified the advantage of BW style muta stacking. It spawned a new form of control in the form of magic box. To some extent it is micro but much less impressive for spectators and less generally useful.
The reality is more nuanced of course. Thors alone didn't kill muta stacking. Terran in BW had an arguably more powerful anti muta aoe spell: irradiate. Muta stacking was strong until the Terran teched to science vessels. Interestingly, the 'hard counter' to muta stacking could be partially countered in turn by splitting your mutas after irradiate was cast, a micro intensive task that became harder with more mutas and more vessels around. I would never expect this level of depth from SC2 though.
That aside, it was early thors which killed muta stacking. In BW there was a window before science vessals when muta stacking was effective. In SC2, thors appear so early that the window is small to non existent.
Did Browder understand all this when he removed muta stacking from the game? I don't see any reason to think so.
Thors/vessels have nothing to do with the difference between Sc1 and Sc2 mutas. Sc1 mutas can be stacked by grouping 1 stationary unit in your muta control group, they can shoot while moving with patrol method and Chinese triangle method, they can spread shot with hold position, etc. there are a lot of tricks.
Sc2 mutas you can just position like any other unit there's really nothing difficult about controlling them well. Browder didn't necessarily take muta micro away from the game, it just was never added to begin with.
Currently not as worried about Carrier as much as the new HotS units, but extra special thanks to Nony's video, we're thinking on 2 possibilities in the future:
leashing thing Interceptor launching thing
But let's try to focus on HotS if we can. -Dayvie, from the pro forum (I think we're aloud to post this stuff?)
Currently not as worried about Carrier as much as the new HotS units, but extra special thanks to Nony's video, we're thinking on 2 possibilities in the future:
leashing thing Interceptor launching thing
But let's try to focus on HotS if we can. -Dayvie, from the pro forum (I think we're aloud to post this stuff?)
Currently not as worried about Carrier as much as the new HotS units, but extra special thanks to Nony's video, we're thinking on 2 possibilities in the future:
leashing thing Interceptor launching thing
But let's try to focus on HotS if we can. -Dayvie, from the pro forum (I think we're aloud to post this stuff?)
But dayvie, we are focusing on HotS... Carrier microability will directly influence whether players build them, and how they interact with the new HotS units. I think at this point they're only interested in if newbies build carriers at all (since they won't be microing them regardless).
This is absolutely fantastic work, Tyler. Thanks so much for your efforts. I hope they're re-warded with updates to the carrier. I CAN'T WAIT TO DO THIS SICK CARRIER MICRO!!!! =D
i hope these insightful bits that the pro players are giving out are being reposted on the blizzard forum, because i see mr. browder and company pretty active over there.
On September 19 2012 07:29 DaRkVsLiGhT wrote: muta micro in bw doesn't feel the same in sc2 according to jaedong
muta micro is sc2 in barely micro lol, at least compared to bw muta micro now that was amazing
Thors nullified the advantage of BW style muta stacking. It spawned a new form of control in the form of magic box. To some extent it is micro but much less impressive for spectators and less generally useful.
The reality is more nuanced of course. Thors alone didn't kill muta stacking. Terran in BW had an arguably more powerful anti muta aoe spell: irradiate. Muta stacking was strong until the Terran teched to science vessels. Interestingly, the 'hard counter' to muta stacking could be partially countered in turn by splitting your mutas after irradiate was cast, a micro intensive task that became harder with more mutas and more vessels around. I would never expect this level of depth from SC2 though.
That aside, it was early thors which killed muta stacking. In BW there was a window before science vessals when muta stacking was effective. In SC2, thors appear so early that the window is small to non existent.
Did Browder understand all this when he removed muta stacking from the game? I don't see any reason to think so.
Thors/vessels have nothing to do with the difference between Sc1 and Sc2 mutas. Sc1 mutas can be stacked by grouping 1 stationary unit in your muta control group, they can shoot while moving with patrol method and Chinese triangle method, they can spread shot with hold position, etc. there are a lot of tricks.
Sc2 mutas you can just position like any other unit there's really nothing difficult about controlling them well. Browder didn't necessarily take muta micro away from the game, it just was never added to begin with.
You missed my point. I was referring specifically to muta stacking and argued that it isn't a useful technique in SC2, even if it did exist.
I give Browder the benefit of the doubt and assume he took an active decision to exclude it. I hope he at least knew about it because unlike carrier micro tricks, muta stacking was more obvious and vocally discussed as well.
BW style muta stacking has been successfully recreated in the map editor so it was available to Blizzard developers:
In my opinion the carrier changes would be great, because you could give it some microability instead of just 1A.
On the other hand, i dont think muta stacking ( like in BW ) should have a place in SC2. Mutas are microintense already and it would just feel "awkward" in SC2 i guess
EDIT: Another thought i had when i saw the carrier video. There was no "patrol" in BW right? So woudnt this command make the carrier overpowered? Get out all your interceptors and then give a patrol command. Instant deployment EVERY time. Maybe interceptors should have an amount of energy that decreases when they are outside the carrier. Like FUEL. and you HAVE to get them back in from time to time for making them work
On September 19 2012 19:29 nitdkim wrote: there can be a video of every single unit in bw about their intricate micro...
Please this...
On September 19 2012 22:00 TaShadan wrote: muta stacking micro would be imba with unlimited selection. except there will be stronger anti air splash units (with more splash damage)
The thord kinda singlehandedly destroys muta stacking. But if you could stack your mutas and marines weren't so densely grouped, you wouldn't have to make more than 11 mutalisks. And if you stack too many, you're losing waaaaayyy too much damage per shot.
It leads to unintuitive micro decisions where say... You'll fire on your own unit/building in order to then order your interceptors to go pick on a Viking at range 12.
It becomes kinda cool for a while, till it's just as standard as stutter stepping for pros, and then they have to consider balance rammifications. In SC1 doing too much of any micro would always lead you to eventually slip in your macro, in SC2 it would take a whole lot more so eventually they have to consider if this new possible range 12 Carrier is balanced since pros will be able to play almost like they were range 12. It probably isn't...
Could they balance a carrier that has 12 range in the hands of any pros? Probably. They could lower the interceptor dps, lower it's health, increase the cost... I don't think I would. Iconic Starcraft unit or not. I'm all for leaving it in the game as a more or less neutered unit people can throw in like manner Mules though without the 12 range targeting.
On September 19 2012 22:00 TaShadan wrote: muta stacking micro would be imba with unlimited selection. except there will be stronger anti air splash units (with more splash damage)
The thord kinda singlehandedly destroys muta stacking. But if you could stack your mutas and marines weren't so densely grouped, you wouldn't have to make more than 11 mutalisks. And if you stack too many, you're losing waaaaayyy too much damage per shot.
In essence, it adds another dimension of optional plays that you have to weigh out the risks and the reward to determine the action that you'll make.
A classic instance would be Mutalisks vs Archons where it is much more efficient to spread the flock than to clump them.
So it is up the the opposition to fondle around in positioning themselves properly to deflects damage from happening.
On September 19 2012 22:28 Furycrab wrote: It leads to unintuitive micro decisions where say... You'll fire on your own unit/building in order to then order your interceptors to go pick on a Viking at range 12.
It becomes kinda cool for a while, till it's just as standard as stutter stepping for pros, and then they have to consider balance rammifications. In SC1 doing too much of any micro would always lead you to eventually slip in your macro, in SC2 it would take a whole lot more so eventually they have to consider if this new possible range 12 Carrier is balanced since pros will be able to play almost like they were range 12. It probably isn't...
Could they balance a carrier that has 12 range in the hands of any pros? Probably. They could lower the interceptor dps, lower it's health, increase the cost... I don't think I would. Iconic Starcraft unit or not. I'm all for leaving it in the game as a more or less neutered unit people can throw in like manner Mules though without the 12 range targeting.
The carrier was so bad they considered removing it. It would be ridiculous if the only changes required to make it viable were this, I don't think any nerfing is necessary.
Currently not as worried about Carrier as much as the new HotS units, but extra special thanks to Nony's video, we're thinking on 2 possibilities in the future:
leashing thing Interceptor launching thing
But let's try to focus on HotS if we can. -Dayvie, from the pro forum (I think we're aloud to post this stuff?)
Glad to hear Blizzard is listening, though I can't blame them for putting those ideas on the shelf for now. Revisiting WoL units is a pandora's box that they don't want to open right now, even with the carrier. I am sure they would love to do it, but the brand new, untested HotS units need our attention right now. After all, they only have so many people on deck to work on this stuff. But the day of Carrier 2.0, now with elite pilots, is to come.
awesome that Blizzard is listening, really hope they do bring back at least some aspects of BW's carrier micro. Not necessarily the "avoid targetting your own interceptors" thing which is just sort of silly and random, but the target switching keeping interceptors in play makes perfect sense and is totally intuitive and should be in the game.
as for Muta stacking...the issue was the same issue as with Viking Flowers, which is that it makes it impossible to accurately scout the enemy force. Is that 3 mutas about to harass your base, or 20? SC2 already has a bit of an issue with things being "coinflippy", and making it harder to scout will only increase that.
On September 19 2012 22:28 Furycrab wrote: It leads to unintuitive micro decisions where say... You'll fire on your own unit/building in order to then order your interceptors to go pick on a Viking at range 12.
What makes that more unintuitive then say pre-nerfed Voidrays charging up on rocks or a sacrificial voidray? That's precisely why we want to add these sorts of things. It allows all sorts of creative play and execution beyond the intended Rock-Paper-Scissors format. It's why something like Carrier micro is superior to Oracle entomb. There's only one preset way of entombing minerals and you can't entomb better than another once you've maneuvered it into range. Carrier micro requires constant, precise control like marine splitting or stutter step and that's what makes it awesome.
Besides of which, what does 'unintuitive decisions' really mean/ why does it matter? You discover or are told the characteristics of a unit and then you know what it does and how it behaves. You can then apply what you know about the unit in standard or unique situations.
The rest of your post about balance is a given. It's what Tyler even said- it will probably need to be balanced if they make these changes. But I don't see why this micro would only be cool for awhile. It won't be novel, but it still requires skill. Do people feel ho-hum about marine splitting because so many pro's do it? No, because it's hard to do and it requires skill so it's always impressive even if it becomes standard play.
I'm sure people are sick of the comparison but for example in chess: sacrifices are pretty unintuitive. You have to develop a sense for them. I would say that despite this chess remains a very accessible game as newbies can pick up the absolute basics really quickly. It's not until later down the road that you need to learn such intricacies to improve.
I don't understand this argument of unintuitive. Casuals aren't supposed to find out every little trick there is. Someone who casually plays guitar isn't going to find out about all the little tricks there are such as pinch harmonics. And in these days they probably can if they're interested in the game or instrument since you just go on the internet and ask it in on a game forum....
Discovering tricks is another thing blizzard is taking away from the hardcore gamers, the gamers who care about blizzard and care about the products they release. Not the casuals who take up sc2 to play the campaign, give some custom games a shot and then ditch it for another version of modern warfare.
These casuals don't care about these tricks, the fact that these tricks exist changes nothing for the casual player, they are oblivous. 6 years ago people didn't know about mutalisk micro, you didn't have noobies talking about 'I don' tknow how to handle my mutalisks, stacking them and hold position/patrol/attack move microing them seems really counterintuitive to me!!'
lool.
I'm really wondering what's going on in these people their heads, or what their secret agenda's are. Isn't there someone with a past in BW who cares about the aspects which made bw so great, working at blizzard? I wish the discussions about sc2 going on at blizzard who'd get released somehow, I just can't help but wondering what's clouding their vision from seeing the truth.
On September 20 2012 02:23 awesomoecalypse wrote: awesome that Blizzard is listening, really hope they do bring back at least some aspects of BW's carrier micro. Not necessarily the "avoid targetting your own interceptors" thing which is just sort of silly and random, but the target switching keeping interceptors in play makes perfect sense and is totally intuitive and should be in the game.
as for Muta stacking...the issue was the same issue as with Viking Flowers, which is that it makes it impossible to accurately scout the enemy force. Is that 3 mutas about to harass your base, or 20? SC2 already has a bit of an issue with things being "coinflippy", and making it harder to scout will only increase that.
Dustin Browder: We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate.
wtf? is not now supossed to be the best moment to see how it works? this sounds like yea, we saw the video and we won't change it
On September 20 2012 04:45 Berceno wrote: Dustin Browder: We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate.
wtf? is not now supossed to be the best moment to see how it works? this sounds like yea, we saw the video and we won't change it
First time I hear about these differences and it's very interesting.
What I thought of was actually this is the way all units should be in SC2.
Units should have a basic mechanic that makes the unit usable and decent.
Yet almost all of them should have these neat little tricks, which are harder to do and yet rewarding. Besides macro this would be an interesting difference between the very best players and the beginners. All units would have a certain strength, but given a specific unit control it would be alot stronger.
I have also found this to be very entertaining to watch.
That is why people love to see marines being split or a ling taking out that one baneling or banshee micro vs marines. Or drop & pickups with prism/overlord/medivac. There are already quite a bit of these possibilities in the game, but it might be even better if they'd kick it up one more notch.
I have a feeling Blizzard actually realized this, hence why alot of units have 'micro' abilities. But it's not the same. I would actually refer to this micro as IMPLIED micro. Because when you have blink, ofcourse you're gonna use it, regardless of how good you are. You might be less efficient at using it, but it's still a good ability.
Yet the most rewarding micro is obviously the 'invisible' tricks that are in the game, but takes practice and research to actually master.
I entirely agree with the points made here Carrier micro was one of the great moments in BW, where you could see the skill of the player really shine through, and I don't think it would be in any way unbalancing to have that in the game for carriers. Just then balance the carrier so that it works with those things in mind.
Keeping the carrier as the mechanics it is currently won't work because they can't buff it's A-move too much more without it being OP in low leagues. Which is why adding in these advanced micro tricks is the best way to do it, buff it for the top players and leave it balanced by the lower leagues still.
In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
OR OR Blizzard can add in a Tutorial for those units in Single Player`s mode to carefully breaks down the movement and handy dandy of the those tricks so the new players can be accessible to these from the get go!
Now everybody wins, n00bs win, pros find new challenges to push their limits, spectators are in awe of the godly plays, sponsors gets drawn in, esports bloom in the culture, and hurray for all.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Just watching replays you will not learn how to play the game. The only real way is to either 1) figure it out or 2) see an FPVOD or look at someones hands live.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit?
We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be. I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to not putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
People will probably say to not compare SC to chess. But I think we need to compare it to older things. Games like chess and go have been around and popular for THOUSANDS of years. Knowing what made those games successful is so important to making a new strategy game like Starcraft.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Dude Im sorry that ended like that lol The main point honestly isnt about the difficulty of the micro, its the utility of it. I dont care if they figure out some easy way of doing what Tyler does (though i think the sytem is fine and not really difficult) it has more to do with the effect it creates. Put simply, it would make carriers useful again, vs how they are now. In old broodwar games micro like this allowed for strats like sair reaver, where a pack of hydras would get wasted by cariers and their micro, or do something like make it so you can kite marines. Carriers slowly blimping into range makes them pretty useles.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
*shrug* whatever you say, man
Dude Im sorry that ended like that lol The main point honestly isnt about the difficulty of the micro, its the utility of it. I dont care if they figure out some easy way of doing what Tyler does (though i think the sytem is fine and not really difficult) it has more to do with the effect it creates. Put simply, it would make carriers useful again, vs how they are now. In old broodwar games micro like this allowed for strats like sair reaver, where a pack of hydras would get wasted by cariers and their micro, or do something like make it so you can kite marines. Carriers slowly blimping into range makes them pretty useles.
The changing targets within leash range makes sense. Honestly, should have probably been there the whole time.
Continuous deployment, makes no sense, at all. It completely defies what it means to be a carrier. If the interceptors don't need to be within the carrier to fly across the map, then why bother having the carrier. Just build the interceptors at a rate of 2 for 1 supply or something. It just becomes an esoteric micro trick that doesn't make sense within the game world, and is only there because it adds extra things to do. Yes, it requires concentration to do, which is a good thing but is completely arbirary. It would be like adding the ability to mine faster if you toggled off auto-harvesting and had to click your harvest on the minerals each time. Or any other thing out of an unlimited pool that would require more micro, but not really make much sense.
Additionally, you can't make the arguement that it's the same thing as the Voidray. It makes perfect logical sense that if a unit amplifies it's damage the longer it fires, then you might want to charge it before heading into battle. Having a Carrier unload all it's fighters so they can fly around the map and never have to load again doesn't. "Why do they have to be loaded at all?" is a question a 5-year old would ask.
IMO, the absence of this kind of micro is the reason why carrier is not used in mid game. However, it doesn't take away the fact that carriers after reaching certain amount is extremely powerful in late game PvZ. It could use some kind of nerf to make it more viable in mid game coupled with this kind of micro imo
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to not putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So does that put your WCG run at 2003 or 2004? I don't know what sort of information was available then. But what I've said before is now is not then. You are letting past experiences of when information was not as easily available, colour everything now. Any micro trick now will be quickly passed on to any player that wants to know. Blizzard can even have tutorials to demonstrate how to do it. I'm sure a Day9 Daily would explain how to do it.
Let's ignore how easily the information can be come by. Let's say the micro trick was known by 100% of Starcraft players. Would you still be opposed? Can you at least agree that it raises the bar for skill as well as increase the spectator experience? (I presume since then, you have observed Korean games including all the micro tricks they used?) Again, knowledge is distributed 100%, do you still think this is a bad thing?
@big1 Real world sense is secondary to gameplay in my mind. I'd never support air units having banking time to turn around for that reason. Gameplay trumps what happens in the real world. Besides it's only if the carriers are constantly microed will the interceptors be constantly deployed. You only the Carriers to reach their destination once and all the interceptors return. Most of the time they are inside the carrier.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
you must be some crazy noob who just doesn't want any micro intricacies because you're too lazy to try and find out things for yourself. you want the one dimensional a-move style and would want to be spoon-fed with every single detail and intricacy the game has to offer.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
Let's come back to earth a little here. No one is suggesting we remove a-move from the game. In fact, that's just the thing. Every unit will still have the a-move feature, which has the most "basic" of micro abilities (stutter step) since it cannot be avoided - a unit moves and attacks, you can stutter step it (probably an exaggeration, but you get the point). But you can increase the effectiveness of units with other micro-able actions. Different micro abilities for higher tier units to add more to the game itself. Something unique to a unit to spice things up a bit and really show players abilities. Not everyone will have to be good at the same thing like stutter step micro. Some may be good at Carrier micro, like how Jangbi was in BW and some may be terrible at it, like how Bisu wasn't particularly keen on using carriers, but he's still pretty good at making the most of other units. It's fun because it adds individuality to the pro gamers you watch. It also adds a certain style to yourself and differentiates you further from other people. it adds and doesn't merely replace anything.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
Let's come back to earth a little here. No one is suggesting we remove a-move from the game. In fact, that's just the thing. Every unit will still have the a-move feature, which has the most "basic" of micro abilities (stutter step) since it cannot be avoided - a unit moves and attacks, you can stutter step it (probably an exaggeration, but you get the point). But you can increase the effectiveness of units with other micro-able actions. Different micro abilities for higher tier units to add more to the game itself. Something unique to a unit to spice things up a bit and really show players abilities. Not everyone will have to be good at the same thing like stutter step micro. Some may be good at Carrier micro, like how Jangbi was in BW and some may be terrible at it, like how Bisu wasn't particularly keen on using carriers, but he's still pretty good at making the most of other units. It's fun because it adds individuality to the pro gamers you watch. It also adds a certain style to yourself and differentiates you further from other people. it adds and doesn't merely replace anything.
he wants everything not to have "unintuitive" micro features so that no one will have an "unfair" advantage just because he knows some sort of micro feature and his opponent doesn't. maybe he's still sore about his "WCG" run where he lost to real pros who knew these micro features and he didn't.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
Let's come back to earth a little here. No one is suggesting we remove a-move from the game. In fact, that's just the thing. Every unit will still have the a-move feature, which has the most "basic" of micro abilities (stutter step) since it cannot be avoided - a unit moves and attacks, you can stutter step it (probably an exaggeration, but you get the point). But you can increase the effectiveness of units with other micro-able actions. Different micro abilities for higher tier units to add more to the game itself. Something unique to a unit to spice things up a bit and really show players abilities. Not everyone will have to be good at the same thing like stutter step micro. Some may be good at Carrier micro, like how Jangbi was in BW and some may be terrible at it, like how Bisu wasn't particularly keen on using carriers, but he's still pretty good at making the most of other units. It's fun because it adds individuality to the pro gamers you watch. It also adds a certain style to yourself and differentiates you further from other people. it adds and doesn't merely replace anything.
he wants everything not to have "unintuitive" micro features so that no one will have an "unfair" advantage just because he knows some sort of micro feature and his opponent doesn't. maybe he's still sore about his "WCG" run where he lost to real pros who knew these micro features and he didn't.
but... but... it's still fair for everyone since everyone can learn it. It's like telling the rest of the NBA players that they can't dunk just because one player can't. He can still train his body, like the rest of the players who have put time and effort to be able to do that.
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
Let's come back to earth a little here. No one is suggesting we remove a-move from the game. In fact, that's just the thing. Every unit will still have the a-move feature, which has the most "basic" of micro abilities (stutter step) since it cannot be avoided - a unit moves and attacks, you can stutter step it (probably an exaggeration, but you get the point). But you can increase the effectiveness of units with other micro-able actions. Different micro abilities for higher tier units to add more to the game itself. Something unique to a unit to spice things up a bit and really show players abilities. Not everyone will have to be good at the same thing like stutter step micro. Some may be good at Carrier micro, like how Jangbi was in BW and some may be terrible at it, like how Bisu wasn't particularly keen on using carriers, but he's still pretty good at making the most of other units. It's fun because it adds individuality to the pro gamers you watch. It also adds a certain style to yourself and differentiates you further from other people. it adds and doesn't merely replace anything.
I like the chess analogy. It's like complaining about castling no?
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit? We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be.
I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
I didn't even play Brood War, but I think I can safely say that BW was so close to becoming an actual game. One that doesn't change constantly. That seems like a big thing to me; with most video games the rules just change all the time patch after patch. BW was settling down and becoming a GAME; like chess, or go, or football. No more balance patches etc etc. I don't know what I think about that but I'm curious as to what you guys think. I just feel that with like SC2 there's just so many updates, still 2 expansions worth of units, people complaining non stop forever and ever.
I think for the love of e-sports we need some game that has the content to be good enough to just BE THE GAME IT IS and no more is needed. Starcraft 2 sure as hell doesn't look like that game to me.
I'm really not the person to talk about when it comes to no putting in the work to get better. I started 5 years after others and qualified for WCG US, in two of my first three years of playing the game. I still didn't know any of these tricks. The only thing I was aware of was shift click to scout. You can't have some units where micro is intuitive, such as splitting marines, yet have some units that operate in some bizarre fashion that only a select few people are privy to. If you would rather information be "hidden" on how to micro units, rather than easily accessible to all, then you really need to focus more on other ways to get an adv because that's sad.
When some know and some don't, to no fault of their own, it's simply not an even playing field. There's really nothing to debate.
So when someone doesn't know what a pin or a double attack is in chess, that makes chess an uneven playing field? Tactics like those are little tricks, after all.
If you know so much about chess, maybe stick to talking about that. I'm sure starcraft would be better if there was no attack icon and it had a random hotkey that players had to discover. That would really help to separate the talented from the noobs. Is there really that little depth in this game that you have to grasp for hidden micro techniques? Maybe they can change it to that no races are shown when the game starts. Everything must be discovered the hard way or else it's just too ez. You must be some crazy gosu that is just desperate for a challenge. I wish I could be like that.
Let's come back to earth a little here. No one is suggesting we remove a-move from the game. In fact, that's just the thing. Every unit will still have the a-move feature, which has the most "basic" of micro abilities (stutter step) since it cannot be avoided - a unit moves and attacks, you can stutter step it (probably an exaggeration, but you get the point). But you can increase the effectiveness of units with other micro-able actions. Different micro abilities for higher tier units to add more to the game itself. Something unique to a unit to spice things up a bit and really show players abilities. Not everyone will have to be good at the same thing like stutter step micro. Some may be good at Carrier micro, like how Jangbi was in BW and some may be terrible at it, like how Bisu wasn't particularly keen on using carriers, but he's still pretty good at making the most of other units. It's fun because it adds individuality to the pro gamers you watch. It also adds a certain style to yourself and differentiates you further from other people. it adds and doesn't merely replace anything.
I like the chess analogy. It's like complaining about castling no?
yes i think that's the point. the guy complains that he doesn't want unintuitive things in his games such as castling in chess
I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
wow you must be THAT good! wow! you should be a progamer!
lol at no skill comment. a-move=no skill. patrol micro requires skill. if u dont wanna micro then a-move. no one's forcing u to use the micro. or maybe you're just a sore loser who doesn't wanna try anything else except a-move. if u want a game that's simple enough to play with no quirky micro tricks u can learn, then go play red alert... the game suits your one-dimensional way of thinking
and no one ever said that we didn't want tutorials.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
Talking about carrier micro please keep the patrol stuff out of the equation, it doesn't have anything to do with this and nobody is arguing for bringing it back here (Even if, it would be off topic).
Reading your comments it seems you have more of a problem with the interceptors staying outside than with the target-switch in leash range?
Concerning the carrier's behaviour with target-switch on leash-range i don't even consider this to be a hidden mechanic or in any way unintuitive. This was pretty clear once you used carriers in BW (imo). You tell them to attack a new target and the interceptors switch but carriers fly towards it, you tell carriers to fly somewhere else, carriers still attack. Would have been more unintuitive to have them fly back in to attack a new target when they can attack targets from a further distance once interceptors are out.
I can see your concern with the interceptors staying outside, it was really strange when I first discovered it in Brood War. It's also true, that just by not being obvious a mechanic doesn't necessarily increase the potential for a pro's skill showing through it. I don't think anyone's saying "We need more hidden mechanics for the pros to shine". Still, It is not that hard to figure out on your own after all. You are bound to notics, that sometimes interceptors pop out not 1 at a time but all at once. If you noticed this and are even in the slightest interested in the game mechanics you will try to reproduce it and quickly see that this happens when the carriers stay moving. That's a completely different thing than using patrol. This will maybe never naturally occur in a normal game to you.
Basically it's about bringing the carrier back to being the powerful unit it should be considering its cost and position in the tech-tree anyway. The described mechanics add a lot to the carrier. Both of those things are definitely buffs. Targetswitch in leash range can be considered a non-issue I think? Interceptors staying outside to instantly attack vs returning to get healed adds a lot of depth to carrier micro I think. I would definitly be for adding it in.
As I said this is not all that hidden. And if you want everything to be obvious you should also complain about stuff like marauder missles missing blink stalkers when you blink just at the right moment, dropshipmicro to prevent damage, archon-toilet, move+shift blink to get large groups of stalkers across cliffs, scouting probes mining mineralpatches to screw up your worker AI, basically every use of game-mechanic that isn't instantly obvious. Where would you want to draw that line? I can definitely see that at some point it does get ridiculous. Like If you had to run your stalker in a pentagram to get a temporary speedboost or something like that :D
I even don't have anything against more complicated stuff being possible, as long as the difference it makes is slight enough to only matter at a certain level. Let's be honest, anyone who is a little bit interested in playing this game and considers it more then just passtime casual gaming a few times per month will easily found out all this stuff. And if, as I said, it doesn't make too big of a difference, the other players will just play normally, not really suffering any consequences anyway. For a bronzeleaguer it is not bad not to know about carrier-micro, he probably also doesn't know that 4 sentries can chain-forcefield a ramp, or about camerasaves, or about efficient use of hotykes and controlgroups, or cloning. Still he will benefit much much more from getting is macro up than slightly increasing the efficiency of his carriers. For everyone more into the game it is no problem in the age of internet and youtube, to find out this stuff. He could also go to the extreme and just ask someone he sees doing this, how it is possible. Or use google.
Also you are greatly exaggerating with having to do daily checks on tl.net to see the newest "micro quirks". It's not like this stuff gets discovered on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis...
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
wow you must be THAT good! wow! you should be a progamer!
lol at no skill comment. a-move=no skill. patrol micro requires skill. if u dont wanna micro then a-move. no one's forcing u to use the micro. or maybe you're just a sore loser who doesn't wanna try anything else except a-move. if u want a game that's simple enough to play with no quirky micro tricks u can learn, then go play red alert... the game suits your one-dimensional way of thinking
and no one ever said that we didn't want tutorials.
Don't know whether to debate abortion or what you said. Yes, I guess P is harder to hit than A on the keyboard. One-dimensional thinking. Too bad this isn't a game requiring thinking or I'm sure you would be amazing. Bummer. Tough break. As for the carrier thing, this is more about a "slippery slope" than simply 1 trick; if everyone goes crazy over this, who is to stop people from clamoring for every other BW trick to be brought back? There's nothing to debate here, in my eyes. I would hope the discussion would be directed more towards the viability/strength of the carrier.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
Why didnt you ask any of your opponents for advice? Its pretty hard to not know about those things if you play the game a couple of hours every day. Really, if its anyone's fault, its yours.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
At this time and age, it would be unreasonable for Blizzard to implement a change without telling the public about it. BW was BW, and in all seriousness, Blizzard did nothing to implement things like patrol micro or muta stacking, so the game developers didn't know about it. If Blizzard decides to implement something like this in SC2, people would know about it, it'd probably be posted in some post or some patch notes.
Is it stupid to be wasting time trying to achieve the impossible because you don't know about a micro trick? Yes, but in the same way, it's stupid trying to get to higher ranks because you think 4 gate is the only build Protoss has, or it's stupid to try and get to C- without learning that getting detection in TvP is good, or it's stupid to try and go professional when you don't even understand timing or map control. If you really like the game, you'd want to learn more about it. Is not watching streams and fpviews part of learning? Do you not have the commands and actions in the actual replays themselves? Do you not have casters going around screaming "omg player X needs to micro against Y" all the time?
Saying that the TBLS dominated BW for the last couple of years because they knew "micro tricks" is a laughable claim. The TBLS had talent, they understood the game at a much higher level than whatever you thought you had at WCG. Maybe back in the day, when July and Nada knew about patrol micro or muta stacking would this claim be somehow relevant but even then, strategies and knowledge got passed around really quickly. You couldn't survive on that knowledge of a "micro trick" alone.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
very well stated sir!
i really don't get why this idiot playa guy doesn't want these carrier micro "tricks" that add depth to your gaming experience. it's basically similar in theory to the marine stutter step. you could a-move your marines OR you could do MKP stutter step to optimize your marines. same goes with carriers. little micro features would add depth to the unit and could help people use it more efficiently. i doubt that lower level players can perfectly execute marine stutter step micro, but they aren't complaining. no one is. so why do you complain about carrier micro if there is also a comparable micro feature in stutter step?
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
very well stated sir!
i really don't get why this idiot playa guy doesn't want these carrier micro "tricks" that add depth to your gaming experience. it's basically similar in theory to the marine stutter step. you could a-move your marines OR you could do MKP stutter step to optimize your marines. same goes with carriers. little micro features would add depth to the unit and could help people use it more efficiently. i doubt that lower level players can perfectly execute marine stutter step micro, but they aren't complaining. no one is. so why do you complain about carrier micro if there is also a comparable micro feature in stutter step?
An AlmondCS post. Could just as well leave it blank. Say something or don't say anything. It could add depth to BW too, for the 10 people that know its intricacies.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
very well stated sir!
i really don't get why this idiot playa guy doesn't want these carrier micro "tricks" that add depth to your gaming experience. it's basically similar in theory to the marine stutter step. you could a-move your marines OR you could do MKP stutter step to optimize your marines. same goes with carriers. little micro features would add depth to the unit and could help people use it more efficiently. i doubt that lower level players can perfectly execute marine stutter step micro, but they aren't complaining. no one is. so why do you complain about carrier micro if there is also a comparable micro feature in stutter step?
An AlmondCS post. Could just as well leave it blank. Say something or don't say anything.
come on mr bigshot 50-5 WCG whatever. tell me, why are you so against giving carrier the micro features it deserves when the simplest marines have stutter step micro. your one-dimensional thinking is nearing its peak
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
very well stated sir!
i really don't get why this idiot playa guy doesn't want these carrier micro "tricks" that add depth to your gaming experience. it's basically similar in theory to the marine stutter step. you could a-move your marines OR you could do MKP stutter step to optimize your marines. same goes with carriers. little micro features would add depth to the unit and could help people use it more efficiently. i doubt that lower level players can perfectly execute marine stutter step micro, but they aren't complaining. no one is. so why do you complain about carrier micro if there is also a comparable micro feature in stutter step?
An AlmondCS post. Could just as well leave it blank. Say something or don't say anything. It could add depth to BW to, for the 10 people that know its intricacies.
I don't see what your point is. You've derailed a perfectly good thread, it's obvious no one here shares your opinion, and from your posts it seems like we'll be seeing you in code s soon anyway! Best of luck!
On topic: I didn't know about the instant deployment in brood war (only began playing it 3 years ago) I would kill to be able to do this in sc2. Thanks tyler!
You are both being beyond unreasonable. AlmondCS, don't call people idiots in teamliquid, that's not how you post.
Playa, everyone in the Brood War community knows about Vulture micro, Dragoon micro, etc. It's not just 10 people. There are resources out there to study and learn, there are forums, vods, hell even just searching "vulture micro" on youtube and google will be enough to figure it out. It's a freaking multiplayer game, you aren't expected to figure out everything about it on your own.
On September 20 2012 17:26 Teoita wrote: You are both being beyond unreasonable. AlmondCS, don't call people idiots in teamliquid, that's not how you post.
Playa, everyone in the Brood War community knows about Vulture micro, Dragoon micro, etc. It's not just 10 people. There are resources out there to study and learn, there are forums, vods, hell even just searching "vulture micro" on youtube and google will be enough to figure it out. It's a freaking multiplayer game, you aren't expected to figure out everything about it on your own.
Can we just all agree that adding unique micro is a good thing? And as someone stated on the previous page of this thread, it's not going to slip into the cracks and only a few people will know. Blizzard can put it in the patch notes. The difference will be the people who are motivated enough to practice it to continuously get better giving them an advantage because they put the time and effort to understanding how to take advantage of it. it's supposed to be something we add to the game to add a bit of fun and add a bit of WOW factor when watching pros making our collective jaws drop asking how he is able to do that.
Why don't people just learn to use the tools they've got.... I can't believe 2 years on people are STILL trying to make SC2 like BW. The carrier itself isn't even a bad unit, the problem is you can't ever safely transition into them.
But let's put this into perspective... how do you balance a unit that takes intricate micro tricks to utilise to its greatest potential? How do you stop it being too powerful in one user's hands while being too weak in another's?
If you're all for bringing back carrier micro... how about bringing back muta stacking too? It takes significant APM to keep them moving and to macro at the same time, as well as good timing to correctly utilise their attack range.
Carriers are the most awkward unit to transition. It was so impressive to see someone with good Carrier micro in BW. To all these people saying that it would make it too easy, and that it is a different game, you must not have had good carrier micro in BW. That's something that Nony said himself, it wasn't easy. Noobs would just A-click, sit at 8 range, and actually do fairly well (just like the carriers behave in SC2) but pros would not only manipulate leash range, but they would utilize terrain, anticipate target timing, STACKING via a trapped probe (hey, guys, corsairs, scouts, and carriers [bisu rep to prove this on HBR vs Fantasy] can stack in BW too!!).
In Heart of the Swarm, Blizzard needs to implement more things like this, to raise the skill ceiling, as opposed to gimmicky mothership core recall ability type things, which are overall a parlor trick. Protoss needs a way to deal with lategame Broodlord/Infestor without having to rely on the Mothership's vortex, which has been greatly changed considering the shift to the mothership core. Leash range "stop and go" attack movement would enable infestor targeting.
foxmeep: sounds like you are talking about..hmm...marines tvz? And yet, none complains that in bronze banelings are too strong or whatever.
Besides, even if something is imbalanced in lower leagues because people suck, the solution is as usual to get better at the game, not to fix something that isn't broken at the highest level.
On September 20 2012 19:25 foxmeep wrote: Why don't people just learn to use the tools they've got.... I can't believe 2 years on people are STILL trying to make SC2 like BW. The carrier itself isn't even a bad unit, the problem is you can't ever safely transition into them.
But let's put this into perspective... how do you balance a unit that takes intricate micro tricks to utilise to its greatest potential? How do you stop it being too powerful in one user's hands while being too weak in another's?
If you're all for bringing back carrier micro... how about bringing back muta stacking too? It takes significant APM to keep them moving and to macro at the same time, as well as good timing to correctly utilise their attack range.
I think we do have to put it into perspective, because if you read the OP, this is how you deal with it:
I hope we can get it though because it takes so much attention and skill to use effectively. It is very strong but becomes incredibly difficult to do as soon as your opponent forces action in two places at once. So the players are countering each other by doing increasingly difficult strategies and that is AWESOME.
It's not like they put this in for the carrier, someone masters it and he's suddenly unbeatable. As Nony said, this takes a lot of skill and attention to use, which includes APM. Make your opponent spend his APM somewhere else. Counter attack, harass, have another engagement elsewhere in the map, make the carriers constantly run around the map. They're not that fast, you can do other things than have just one deathball engagement and whoever wins that wins the game. It creates potential for multiple engagements on the map, something fun and exciting. Something hard to deal with for both players. Just give one race this hard to micro unit that increases his efficiency, others will find a way to deal with this. It was like that when MKP started using marines so effectively that banelings couldn't even be cost effective against them. People will find ways. Perhaps even more than one effective one. This is where we can separate the good from the great!
If it proves to be too OP, then Blizzard can try little tweaks to it till they get it right. This is the Beta, for God's sake! This is the time to push Blizzard to get to try out stuff that the community wants because they feel it will help make the game more entertaining! There aren't any serious tournaments like GSL or MLG playing HOTS yet. Blizzard isn't even asking the Beta testers to pay any money for the expansion yet! No money is on the line if this units proves to be OP. So why should we not push them to try it instead of saying "No, that simply just won't work. Let's just leave it as it is. Unused and useless except for some team games where people are just having fun going for weird strats that won't work out in a serious, balanced game."
We aren't talking about muta stacking here. We're just starting with one at a time. Someone comes up with an idea, he presents it to people and hopes people think it's a good idea too then people start making noise and pitching it to Blizzard. Someone else can make a thread about muta micro and it's advantages and we can also try to convince Blizzard about that too! I'm all for that if it shows why it would be better for the game. But again, this is not what this thread is about.
The reason why we're not just learning the tools we have is because Blizzard is Beta testing for a reason. They want our feedback and we're just simply giving it to them. Honestly, I don't think changes have to be the same as the mechanics in Brood War. It's just that in this case it is. People can come up with mechanics that are interesting and we haven't seen in BW and may pitch that to Blizzard.
I certainly think being able to switch targets within leash range would be a good change. However i am not sure about having to keep the carriers moving so that the interceptors stay out, it seems that it accomplishes the same thing as the upgrade but requires a lot more apm. Now that may not be a bad thing, though with the new units there will already be a lot more micro intensive situations.
I am just speculating, though things like constantly using the oracles abilities. keeping entomb going, making a group of phoenix immune to fungal so that they can fly in do their damage and get away or likewise with blink stalkers.
With oracles, warp prisms and phoenix aswell as recall and energise. Protoss could be threatening with their main army, using entomb, warp prisms zealot/storm drop, raiding somewhere with spell immune units etc, then recall whichever group gets in trouble while strengthening an attack on the other side of the map. Protoss seem to be the race with the most options for being everywhere at once.
There are so many more interesting possibilities to utilise apm. Being able to target switch in leash range would be good but also having to try and keep carriers moving to have the same function as the current upgrade provides seems like an uninteresting way for a player to try and benefit from their skill.
Screw this whole arguing. You won´t ever stop, will you? All this taught me was that I would ban you all if I were a mod.
Repetition of the same crappy arguments over and over. "It´s unintuitive" "I don´t want to have to learn outside of the game" "random ad hominem comment" "It wouldn´t be the same" "It would add sooooo much depth I think it´s ok" "there could be tutorials" This is making the thread unreadable to me. The issue should be to make this technique visible to the audience and the enemy, not how to teach people to keep moving their carrier. I´m out.
I just finished watching code S today where Seed played against Symbol. In this series Seed went several times for mass carriers and gosh that was painful to watch. You just wish to land a perfect vortex to be able to kill zerg broodlord+infestor+corruptor composition, otherwise you are pretty screwed. Carriers in this case was supposed to be effective only when you surprise your opponent. Thats nice but how you surprise your opponent when you need time to build like ten carriers? What i really dont like is that it took him so long to build all those carriers and it came only to one engagement where you are forced to hope for perfect vortex plus that the number of carriers might be enough. You basicly dont move your carriers at all. You just depent on the pure damage, no micro involved.
So what happened there...Seed landed his vortex on all Symbol's corruptors. Symbol fungaled Seed's carriers+spawned a lot of infested terrans. Seed sent archons into the toilet+stormed all corruptors after they poped out of vortex. It wasnt enough which resulted in Seed losing. So sad a lot of very late game pvz where vortex is mostly the only big factor (on toss side) wheather toss win/lose. We cannot depent on carriers unless Blizzard will do something about it. With better carriers micro we will not have to sent our carriers to the battle and just hope we win. Even after the match at the interview, Symbol showed like no fear against carriers. Yeah i guess people laugh at you when you go carrier gg.
i doubt that the old broodwar unit mechanism would be implemented into SC2, Sure the old carrier was awsome, watching the pros using their carriers made me want to do the same, with less success, but i understood that they had to be within a range in order to "deploy" fast again for attacking a new unit, tho i never had the theory behind it.
the thing is, i believe we are looking backwards too much, muta stacking, carrier leash? how about inventing a new method to micro the units. how? i dont know, but you guys might have an idea. (what i think DB wish to come)
I think the problem lies within DB's wish to make a perfect game, and that is the issue imo. for a "perfect" game, units and buildings alike will not behave in any other way, it took several years for pros to discover the "abusement" behind muta stacking, vulture kiting, carrier micro. worker/unit jumping
On September 20 2012 08:04 playa wrote: In BW, on ladders, I used to use the shift click on geyser trick to scout my opponent's base. It was absolutely as unintuitive as anything could be. Most people, being everyone that didn't know about this trick, would simply assume I was hacking. If you want to blame someone for not knowing tricks like this, all I can do is shake my head. So much in life is arbitrary. For example, this trick I just mentioned was eventually not allowed. You would get fined points on ladders and you would auto lose a game if you tried in a tournament. Every race could use the trick, though. In SC 2, it's built into the game to be able to pass through units to scout a base. Who complains now, though?
You guys are really biased. You're hardcore people that have prob been playing from day 1 and don't miss anything that takes place on tl.net When newer players come around, think in 5 years, they're going to have no clue wtf this carrier micro is and etc. They won't be able to just watch a game and realize someone is doing some weird trick that they need to search on tl.net to learn. And, if they do become pretty good, they're probably kinda logical. It probably won't occur to them to try some random combination of random to micro properly. They will be practicing micro in a manner that makes sense. Not in some weird way/glitch way.
Nony was one of the best players and def mechanics were a big part of that. I wouldn't blame him if he wanted the highest degree of mechanics needed for everything. If I were to start playing in 5 years though, I would simply hope that I could find Nony's video on carrier micro, without needing some act of serendipity to end up practicing how I'm supposed to.
Of course you'll be able to find the video. I play the drums; how fucking boring would the drums be if all the little techniques you could do were just completely intuitive and you could just sit at the kit and practice single rolls for a few years and be the best drummer in the world? If the mechanics for throwing a perfect fastball were completely intuitive, what would that be like?
How does one learn SC2? How does one learn anything? How obvious is it to a new chess player that the knight moves in an L shape, and pawns can't move backwards? So much in life is arbitrary right? Who the fuck would care if the pawns could move forwards and backwards? Or if a baseball mound was only 20 feet from home plate? An incredibly complex subject like say, math has so many thousands of pages written about all the things you need to learn. No one even bats an eye; you just understand that you need to read up to learn math. Why is it so bad that a video game requires you to learn it a little bit?
We're talking about Starcraft here. It needs to be the most competitive game it can possibly be. I feel like it can't be that if you just make everything completely obvious in the game. If it's important enough micro that in order to improve you need to learn it, it'll be in a sticky, maybe even in a fucking book someday. The good thing is that the level of skill to do everything else AND micro the carriers would put you at a level where you should be reading micro guides or learning from pro's coaches ANYWAYS.
On September 18 2012 10:04 playa wrote: I never knew how to micro carriers. There was way too much in BW that was esoteric. Important stuff that made a big difference, but it was next to impossible to know everything you needed to. Def not something a casual player would ever know. Unless blizzard wants to make tutorial videos like how to use patrol micro versus zealots and lings (BW), then I'm really against adding quirky things so a select few can get a big adv off by simply knowing how to manipulate units in weird ways.
Yeah, screw the game having some depth to it. Incidentally, if you're a casual player, then it doesn't matter anyways. You'll be playing against other casual players who'll presumably have around the same level of knowledge as you, so it won't make a difference.
If you want to keep adding depth, you'll end up like BW. I had already qualified for WCG US before I even learned about patrol micro for vultures, which is freaking huge to know. Only the most hardcore people that have been around for ever will even have a chance to know all this random stuff. If you want to add "depth," make sure it's accessible. You shouldn't have to scour every thread on tl.net to learn "magic tricks."
You do realize we're living in age where information is distributed really, really fast. These sort of things would not be these carefully guarded secrets. I joined BW very late and I'm aware of most of the BW micro tricks. I'm rubbish at pretty much all of them, but I'm well aware of them.
On September 18 2012 10:29 playa wrote: Everyone is considered a pro in SC 2, despite being no better than they were in BW or putting in any more effort. There's always going to be a lot of people that simply have no clue, no matter what level of a player they are. I'm just saying, if you're not prepared to make tricks accessible to everyone, then it shouldn't happen.
Depth... If you can make better decisions than your opponent, then I don't have a problem with you winning. I'm not even saying I'm against adding things like this... so not sure how reasonable you are. That said, why not petition for the macro mechanics to go back to how they were in BW. It makes good macro all the more impressive... What's the difference.
But it is accessible to everyone. It's just a matter of learning. Do you take out backwards skating out of hockey because some people don't want to learn? It's there if you want to, but if you just want to play casual, pond hockey you can be perfectly happy skating forwards and never backwards. These will not be deep, dark secrets. They'll be widely available to everyone... just like Marine splitting. But not everyone is MKP. Do we get rid of the marine split because not everyone can hack it? It's always there waiting, something to aspire to.
Thank you so much for these posts.
People like playa and dustin browder are what's wrong with sc2. I myself have been playing bw maybe for 2-3 months (watching maybe around 6-8 months) and I basically know 'every trick' that's still allowed today. (for zerg atleast)
The real world is all about discovery as well, a lot of important scientific discoveries were based on lucky discoveries (but discoveries nonetheless).
This thread isn't really about whether micro tricks are a "good thing" or not. The point is that SOMETHING needs to happen with the SC2 Carrier to make it a viable unit in competitive play.
According to Liquipedia, Carriers aren't too useful in PvP versus a normal Stalker/Sentry army comp. And Vikings coming out of one or two starports with reactors are going to hard-counter a carrier strategy.
The only place where it looks like carriers might work is in PvZ, but the first idea they have about how to use them is as a hidden all-in build. Essentially, if the Zerg has enough Corruptors and Hydras, it's probably not going to work (except lategame in a deathball. But there are a LOT of Protoss units that are good lategame in a deathball).
NonY isn't even saying that Blizzard should make this change to the game blind. I think he makes a good argument that putting BW's Carrier mechanics back into SC2 would make Carriers viable units again. But all he's recommending is that Blizzard put the mechanics back into the HotS beta to see how they work.
Isn't that the point of a beta? To see if something works before you unleash it on the world?
Very interesting. I think starcraft is moving in a totally different direction than brood war. I am sad to say I believe they will take away these types of micro oriented units rather than add them. But great video and hopefully blizzard takes notes from the professionals.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
wow you must be THAT good! wow! you should be a progamer!
lol at no skill comment. a-move=no skill. patrol micro requires skill. if u dont wanna micro then a-move. no one's forcing u to use the micro. or maybe you're just a sore loser who doesn't wanna try anything else except a-move. if u want a game that's simple enough to play with no quirky micro tricks u can learn, then go play red alert... the game suits your one-dimensional way of thinking
and no one ever said that we didn't want tutorials.
The thing with vulture patrol micro is that knowing the trick already puts you 80% of the way there. Pretty much anyone can kill 10 slowlings with a vulture if they know the trick. In this case I'd say that just the knowledge by itself gives you too much of an advantage, and that's what I think playa is getting at. Not saying that vulture micro is easy of course, just this aspect of it. The hard part is emulating this trick while choosing your targets.
On the other hand, and as many have said, I can tell you all the muta tricks or the carrier tricks like Nony did, and after a bit of practice your muta/carrier micro is still going to be waaay lacking. So in this case it is skill that’s making most of the difference, not the knowledge, and that's where we want to be with micro tricks.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
very well stated sir!
i really don't get why this idiot playa guy doesn't want these carrier micro "tricks" that add depth to your gaming experience. it's basically similar in theory to the marine stutter step. you could a-move your marines OR you could do MKP stutter step to optimize your marines. same goes with carriers. little micro features would add depth to the unit and could help people use it more efficiently. i doubt that lower level players can perfectly execute marine stutter step micro, but they aren't complaining. no one is. so why do you complain about carrier micro if there is also a comparable micro feature in stutter step?
An AlmondCS post. Could just as well leave it blank. Say something or don't say anything. It could add depth to BW to, for the 10 people that know its intricacies.
I don't see what your point is. You've derailed a perfectly good thread, it's obvious no one here shares your opinion, and from your posts it seems like we'll be seeing you in code s soon anyway! Best of luck!
On topic: I didn't know about the instant deployment in brood war (only began playing it 3 years ago) I would kill to be able to do this in sc2. Thanks tyler!
Lots of korean players were disappointed about this sc2' useless carrer. Many high rank players tried to to find a way how to use them, found out that it' quite useful in vs factory units. But hard to meet who use only factory unit in protoss.. D:
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
very well stated sir!
i really don't get why this idiot playa guy doesn't want these carrier micro "tricks" that add depth to your gaming experience. it's basically similar in theory to the marine stutter step. you could a-move your marines OR you could do MKP stutter step to optimize your marines. same goes with carriers. little micro features would add depth to the unit and could help people use it more efficiently. i doubt that lower level players can perfectly execute marine stutter step micro, but they aren't complaining. no one is. so why do you complain about carrier micro if there is also a comparable micro feature in stutter step?
An AlmondCS post. Could just as well leave it blank. Say something or don't say anything. It could add depth to BW to, for the 10 people that know its intricacies.
I don't see what your point is. You've derailed a perfectly good thread, it's obvious no one here shares your opinion, and from your posts it seems like we'll be seeing you in code s soon anyway! Best of luck!
On topic: I didn't know about the instant deployment in brood war (only began playing it 3 years ago) I would kill to be able to do this in sc2. Thanks tyler!
You have an upgrade for that ><
Not sure if you are being serious or not but the upgrade is only for the first 4 interceptors, and it only doubles the speed. I'd really like to see this in SC2, I think for the reasons stated by Tyler that it would definitely help make the Carrier more* viable.
*Key word being "more", whether they would actually be viable or not remains to be seen.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
very well stated sir!
i really don't get why this idiot playa guy doesn't want these carrier micro "tricks" that add depth to your gaming experience. it's basically similar in theory to the marine stutter step. you could a-move your marines OR you could do MKP stutter step to optimize your marines. same goes with carriers. little micro features would add depth to the unit and could help people use it more efficiently. i doubt that lower level players can perfectly execute marine stutter step micro, but they aren't complaining. no one is. so why do you complain about carrier micro if there is also a comparable micro feature in stutter step?
An AlmondCS post. Could just as well leave it blank. Say something or don't say anything. It could add depth to BW to, for the 10 people that know its intricacies.
I don't see what your point is. You've derailed a perfectly good thread, it's obvious no one here shares your opinion, and from your posts it seems like we'll be seeing you in code s soon anyway! Best of luck!
On topic: I didn't know about the instant deployment in brood war (only began playing it 3 years ago) I would kill to be able to do this in sc2. Thanks tyler!
You have an upgrade for that ><
Not sure if you are being serious or not but the upgrade is only for the first 4 interceptors, and it only doubles the speed. I'd really like to see this in SC2, I think for the reasons stated by Tyler that it would definitely help make the Carrier more* viable.
*Key word being "more", whether they would actually be viable or not remains to be seen.
Umm.. No... the upgrade is for all the interceptors, just tested it. Yes it is not instant but it is very fast. About being viable, the carrier is very viable lategame, it is a very supply efficient unit, problem is it takes 2 minutes to build 1.
The Carrier in SC2 has the same problem as mech has for Terrans: They cant be "burst-produced" and as long as any other part of your army can be burst-produced they will be much more attractive. That is a terrible concept in SC2 and so I would think that in addition to the microability this burst-production-potential needs to be adressed as well. Removing Warp Gate, Reactor, Larva Inject and Chronoboost would solve many problems IMO and one of them is the unattractiveness of air armies.
On September 21 2012 19:20 Rabiator wrote: The Carrier in SC2 has the same problem as mech has for Terrans: They cant be "burst-produced" and as long as any other part of your army can be burst-produced they will be much more attractive. That is a terrible concept in SC2 and so I would think that in addition to the microability this burst-production-potential needs to be adressed as well. Removing Warp Gate, Reactor, Larva Inject and Chronoboost would solve many problems IMO and one of them is the unattractiveness of air armies.
That actually isnt as big a deal for the same reason that zergs will transition to BL/infestor. If you ever watch a BL infestor transition done well it is basically slowly swapping out those quick to build units for powerful units (this is also how a transition to sky terran can work). There is no need to go backwards in order to fix an issue that does not exist.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
very well stated sir!
i really don't get why this idiot playa guy doesn't want these carrier micro "tricks" that add depth to your gaming experience. it's basically similar in theory to the marine stutter step. you could a-move your marines OR you could do MKP stutter step to optimize your marines. same goes with carriers. little micro features would add depth to the unit and could help people use it more efficiently. i doubt that lower level players can perfectly execute marine stutter step micro, but they aren't complaining. no one is. so why do you complain about carrier micro if there is also a comparable micro feature in stutter step?
An AlmondCS post. Could just as well leave it blank. Say something or don't say anything. It could add depth to BW to, for the 10 people that know its intricacies.
I don't see what your point is. You've derailed a perfectly good thread, it's obvious no one here shares your opinion, and from your posts it seems like we'll be seeing you in code s soon anyway! Best of luck!
On topic: I didn't know about the instant deployment in brood war (only began playing it 3 years ago) I would kill to be able to do this in sc2. Thanks tyler!
You have an upgrade for that ><
Not sure if you are being serious or not but the upgrade is only for the first 4 interceptors, and it only doubles the speed. I'd really like to see this in SC2, I think for the reasons stated by Tyler that it would definitely help make the Carrier more* viable.
*Key word being "more", whether they would actually be viable or not remains to be seen.
Umm.. No... the upgrade is for all the interceptors, just tested it. Yes it is not instant but it is very fast. About being viable, the carrier is very viable lategame, it is a very supply efficient unit, problem is it takes 2 minutes to build 1.
No, the problem is that it's a boring-as-all-hell unit that you have nothing to do with except a-move click. Whooo I am the commander of a carrier. How cool is that? It actually feels really, really boring. That's one of the main points of this fix. We need to make units more fun.
i cant believe every single person on this website isnt agreeing overwhlemingly with everything tyler said. This is why blizzard keeps failing us. Even here in the "hardcore" community people argue to keep the game noob friendly and less competitive?? sc2 is dooomed.
On September 21 2012 21:57 LeSioN wrote: i cant believe every single person on this website isnt agreeing overwhlemingly with everything tyler said. This is why blizzard keeps failing us. Even here in the "hardcore" community people argue to keep the game noob friendly and less competitive?? sc2 is dooomed.
OMG not everyone has the same opinion!! lets protest so now everyone will have one mind and if you express your opinion you get banned for good!!
Seriously... "hardcore"? there are very good reasons why it should and should not be implanted, don't just mark the anti subject opinion as irrelevant.
The objection to mictro tricks because they are not 'obvious' is a weak argument.
The game already requires basic mechanical understanding to play (e.g. drones per mineral patch, autocast burrowed banelings, etc). New players learn it in the single player missions or training exercises. Why can they not learn these tricks (patrol micro, carrier micro, etc) there as well?
as much as i would hate to say it, its most likely blizz wont bring in these mechanics. these mechanics in sc1 were bugs, it was very unlikely they were intentional designs by the devs, that been said it was mechanics like these that raised the skill ceiling and added depths to the game. blizz will most likely try to come up with their own way of non bug micro mechanics for the carrier, at this rate its nothing.
very cool and I totally agree with this, tyler. it would be seriously cool if the BW carrier was in SC2.. It would provide a legitimate late game strategy for P
On September 22 2012 00:05 reminisce12 wrote: as much as i would hate to say it, its most likely blizz wont bring in these mechanics. these mechanics in sc1 were bugs, it was very unlikely they were intentional designs by the devs, that been said it was mechanics like these that raised the skill ceiling and added depths to the game. blizz will most likely try to come up with their own way of non bug micro mechanics for the carrier, at this rate its nothing.
The interceptors not returning was probably a bug, but who says it has to be? They can still put that in the game as something that is no longer a bug. An example of a bug they incorporated is the mineral walk for workers. I'm sure that BW developers didn't intend for that. We shouldn't be asking if they were bugs or not. We should be asking if they make the game more interesting. If it does, then why isn't it in the game?
On September 22 2012 00:05 reminisce12 wrote: as much as i would hate to say it, its most likely blizz wont bring in these mechanics. these mechanics in sc1 were bugs, it was very unlikely they were intentional designs by the devs, that been said it was mechanics like these that raised the skill ceiling and added depths to the game. blizz will most likely try to come up with their own way of non bug micro mechanics for the carrier, at this rate its nothing.
The interceptors not returning was probably a bug, but who says it has to be? They can still put that in the game as something that is no longer a bug. An example of a bug they incorporated is the mineral walk for workers. I'm sure that BW developers didn't intend for that. We shouldn't be asking if they were bugs or not. We should be asking if they make the game more interesting. If it does, then why isn't it in the game?
They're not bugs, to be clear. The carrier functions fine according to its requirement, but in SC1 a byproduct of a certain set of commands is this particular behavior where the interceptors don't return... again, that's not what a bug is. It's likely something the original devs saw or heard about and were like, that's kinda cool. They felt, as I and many other people do, that the mechanical trick DOES make the game more interesting since it rewards the studious player, so they didn't see a need to change the behavior.
In my opinion, things like this always make games more interesting, and it seems like games and devs of the past were willing to let behavior like this slide for whatever reason. Nowadays so much attention is paid to intended behavior (the "plan"), in addition to having the technology to spot it/change it on the spot, that things like this go away simply because they were unintended, despite not being legitimate bugs. Take sockfolding, for example. It made mining interesting instead of just something you click at. Take Double Dragon's glitch to level up your hearts on stage two when you scroll the Will at the other end of the fence, take MvC2 where a new character comes out mid-air and you can do an air attack to make them block, then since they only get one block per jump, you could attack again in certain cases before they landed to get a free chain of hits. That's certainly not intended, but you can't just mass update cabinet games can you? You can to PC games nowadays, and I think that devs and game designers are being to liberal with this capability that it's ruining game appeal in general, the "blandness" of the SC2 carrier being just one of the symptoms of the overall problem.
What do you guys expect from Dustin Browder ? He is the designer of C&C Red Alert , and we all know about these games : overpowered brute force ranged units with no micro whatsoever. The units that are "fun" to buy and bring to battle and look at the explosions they cause. That's all those casuals need, and they will jump to the next game anyways.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
wow you must be THAT good! wow! you should be a progamer!
lol at no skill comment. a-move=no skill. patrol micro requires skill. if u dont wanna micro then a-move. no one's forcing u to use the micro. or maybe you're just a sore loser who doesn't wanna try anything else except a-move. if u want a game that's simple enough to play with no quirky micro tricks u can learn, then go play red alert... the game suits your one-dimensional way of thinking
and no one ever said that we didn't want tutorials.
The thing with vulture patrol micro is that knowing the trick already puts you 80% of the way there. Pretty much anyone can kill 10 slowlings with a vulture if they know the trick. In this case I'd say that just the knowledge by itself gives you too much of an advantage, and that's what I think playa is getting at. Not saying that vulture micro is easy of course, just this aspect of it. The hard part is emulating this trick while choosing your targets.
On the other hand, and as many have said, I can tell you all the muta tricks or the carrier tricks like Nony did, and after a bit of practice your muta/carrier micro is still going to be waaay lacking. So in this case it is skill that’s making most of the difference, not the knowledge, and that's where we want to be with micro tricks.
it doesn't give a big advantage because a noob will be 100 percent focused on the trick while his macro is just absolute horrendous.
A great service to the community, hopefully blizzard will try this. There is honestly no reason not to, since HoTS is in beta it is the perfect time to test this out.
Infinite thanks.
Edit: I am glad this is the thread to recieve my century post. <3's
On September 22 2012 00:05 reminisce12 wrote: as much as i would hate to say it, its most likely blizz wont bring in these mechanics. these mechanics in sc1 were bugs, it was very unlikely they were intentional designs by the devs, that been said it was mechanics like these that raised the skill ceiling and added depths to the game. blizz will most likely try to come up with their own way of non bug micro mechanics for the carrier, at this rate its nothing.
The interceptors not returning was probably a bug, but who says it has to be? They can still put that in the game as something that is no longer a bug. An example of a bug they incorporated is the mineral walk for workers. I'm sure that BW developers didn't intend for that. We shouldn't be asking if they were bugs or not. We should be asking if they make the game more interesting. If it does, then why isn't it in the game?
well, the design philosophy of blizz these days has changed, they want to dictate how the game is played, wat players should and should not do, if players discover something interesting and op, they nerf it. they prolly think these mechanics from sc1 were gimmicky and bugs, if they wanted to put them into the game they wouldve done it 2 yrs ago with WOL.
On September 22 2012 12:45 jinzo123 wrote: give stacking mutas back too if you gonna fix carriers blizz kkthx and patrol command on helion to shoot while moving kkthx
Why? Those are both units that have a lot of useage and their place in the game as it is, plus stacking 30/40 mutas could be a bit too powerful given unlimited unit selection.
The carrier on the other hand that doesn't fit into the game properly at present, but has a lot of potential if it is tweaked a bit. Also why must this attitude of fixing one race's unit = change other races units always come into play.
Tweak other stuff later for sure, or play around with it (it is beta after all), but the Carrier has barely been touched since beta, even bunkers have been changed numerous times
Would love to see carrier micro in SC2 2011 OSL Finals were so exciting to watch. In addition it would give P a Unit to strive for, except the Vortexmaker aka Mothership.
to be fair they did tighten up the interceptor flight pattern....thou that was virtually nothing
Didn't that make interceptors more susceptible to fungal though?
kinda but it was worth the improvement. They would fly way off so to get shot by spores a good distance away. Large flight pattern just make it easier for everything in the area to get a shot off
On September 22 2012 12:45 jinzo123 wrote: give stacking mutas back too if you gonna fix carriers blizz kkthx and patrol command on helion to shoot while moving kkthx
Why? Those are both units that have a lot of useage and their place in the game as it is, plus stacking 30/40 mutas could be a bit too powerful given unlimited unit selection.
The carrier on the other hand that doesn't fit into the game properly at present, but has a lot of potential if it is tweaked a bit. Also why must this attitude of fixing one race's unit = change other races units always come into play.
Tweak other stuff later for sure, or play around with it (it is beta after all), but the Carrier has barely been touched since beta, even bunkers have been changed numerous times
They could make stacking inversly proportional to the number of Mutas selected and make this their passive ability with its own icon in the command tab and a tooltip.
On September 22 2012 12:45 jinzo123 wrote: give stacking mutas back too if you gonna fix carriers blizz kkthx and patrol command on helion to shoot while moving kkthx
Why? Those are both units that have a lot of useage and their place in the game as it is, plus stacking 30/40 mutas could be a bit too powerful given unlimited unit selection.
The carrier on the other hand that doesn't fit into the game properly at present, but has a lot of potential if it is tweaked a bit. Also why must this attitude of fixing one race's unit = change other races units always come into play.
Tweak other stuff later for sure, or play around with it (it is beta after all), but the Carrier has barely been touched since beta, even bunkers have been changed numerous times
They could make stacking inversly proportional to the number of Mutas selected and make this their passive ability with its own icon in the command tab and a tooltip.
Stacking shouldn't work that easy imo. In brood war you couldn't do horizontal paths too much because your muta's would have the tendency to unstack a bit. The fact that it wasn't achieved by pressing a button and had these little quirks, made it that more interesting and more "natural".
The carrier, even with micro will always be bad in SC2. Corruptors, vikings, marines, clumping, they have all seen to that. I am glad they put it in though, because it is a fun unit for noobs like me.
I find it funny that they initially stated the mothership was a fun unit for the noobs, but now it is the carrier, and the mothership is staple.
Being realistic I think the target change in leash range should be easy for blizzard to bring in line with there sc2 design.
The continuous deployment (not landing the interceptors while not attacking) would have to work slightly different in HotS than it did in BW - mechanicly, imo. There would need to be a button "Continuous Deployment" that you could be activated, so the intercepters will not land as long as the carrier does not stop moving or attacking for longer than 1 sec. So if the carrier moves out of leash range they will follow it and stop attacking. clicking it again would deactivate it (or like siege mode a second button). If the interceptors attack at this moment they will continue doing so. If the are following the carrier, they would land.
This would kill of a bit of the exiting micro Nony wanted back. But I think most of it would be there and it would be a good compromise vs the readability of the unit. I played BW (D/D+) Noob lvl. and watched a lot and never quite got all the micro of the carrier.
Absolutely loved the video and the idea. Really really hope that Blizzard implements these changes after they are done fiddling with their 'new stuff'.
On September 20 2012 16:14 playa wrote: I wouldn't expect many to be able to relate... Many of times, I would go something like 50-5 on a ladder and all of my losses would be to 2 gate zealot rush in t vs p. I watched a Nada replay on Korhal that blew my mind. He was killing zealots like it was nothing with vultures. So, what do I do... I practice trying to use attack move without the adv of lan. So much time wasted basically attempting the impossible, simply because I didn't know to use P instead of "A." There is absolutely no freaking skill involved in knowing micro gimmicks.
This game should come down to mastery, not perverted ideas of skill. I'm not a hypocrite. I want the better player to win. I don't want to know any tricks that he/she doesn't. If that makes me wrong/bad person, then I'm not ashamed.
BW was boring in that after a certain time, you just didn't see new players rise to the top. For a period of a few years, Koll was probably the only new face. All of these micro tricks remaining hidden from the majority of the player base is simply more obstacles in the way, which in part leads to the same faces at the highest level. If you already have a games adv, what more of an adv do you really need? More emphasis on "talent," less emphasis on when you started playing and how much of a tl.net addiction you have.
Personally, I'd rather spend more time playing than browsing tl.net. And especially not browsing for what new quirky micro trick bs do I need to learn now. It's my opinion, but I prefer a game that can be taken at face value. You don't have to always wonder what trick you're not privy to atm. That's a good thing. And if you have a problem with blizzard adding tutorials, if not simply links to videos from tl.net, then you're simply not a reasonable person. You should ask yourself why you're not a reasonable person.
It should be about talent AND the effort you put into the game. It could also be a way for Blizzard to indirectly reward people who have been playing their game for a long time. Since this thread is about carrier micro, I'll just focus on that for this post. It's not just you know about the Carrier Micro that you suddenly have the advantage. It's still pretty hard to do and takes a lot of time to master (you did say it should come down to mastery). Plus you're using APM instead of doing something else. You still have to balance it out with other things you have to do like creating more units or multiple engagements in the map.
In fact, it wouldn't really matter if you knew about the Carrier Micro but can't put it to good use or I dare say you may even be worse off by attempting it but failing bad and also neglecting other stuff you have to do in-game. I'm sure all pros know about it, but they still have different levels of success because others know how to use it to full efficiency while others don't quite grasp it fully just yet for a variety of reasons. The point is, it's not an advantage because it's not just one click of a button and it does what you tell it to do. It's something that turns into an advantage because you have trained yourself to know how to do it and do it effectively.
No one is saying Blizzard shouldn't add a tutorial. In fact it will probably be better if they do since they can tell people that this unit can do this neat micro but it's not a buff. You have to know how to use it or else it might even do more harm than good. The harder the micro is, the more chances of a player mis-micro-ing it like a greater risk but greater reward kind of thing. Do I just leave my carrier on a-move where I'm sure what it will do? Or do I micro it and have a chance of it not being as effective as just a-moving it if I don't do it properly but will increase its efficiency if I do micro it properly?
very well stated sir!
i really don't get why this idiot playa guy doesn't want these carrier micro "tricks" that add depth to your gaming experience. it's basically similar in theory to the marine stutter step. you could a-move your marines OR you could do MKP stutter step to optimize your marines. same goes with carriers. little micro features would add depth to the unit and could help people use it more efficiently. i doubt that lower level players can perfectly execute marine stutter step micro, but they aren't complaining. no one is. so why do you complain about carrier micro if there is also a comparable micro feature in stutter step?
An AlmondCS post. Could just as well leave it blank. Say something or don't say anything. It could add depth to BW to, for the 10 people that know its intricacies.
I don't see what your point is. You've derailed a perfectly good thread, it's obvious no one here shares your opinion, and from your posts it seems like we'll be seeing you in code s soon anyway! Best of luck!
On topic: I didn't know about the instant deployment in brood war (only began playing it 3 years ago) I would kill to be able to do this in sc2. Thanks tyler!
You have an upgrade for that ><
Not sure if you are being serious or not but the upgrade is only for the first 4 interceptors, and it only doubles the speed. I'd really like to see this in SC2, I think for the reasons stated by Tyler that it would definitely help make the Carrier more* viable.
*Key word being "more", whether they would actually be viable or not remains to be seen.
Umm.. No... the upgrade is for all the interceptors, just tested it. Yes it is not instant but it is very fast. About being viable, the carrier is very viable lategame, it is a very supply efficient unit, problem is it takes 2 minutes to build 1.
Umm... Yes...
Researched from: Fleet Beacon The launch speed of the Interceptors is now increased. The first four interceptors are launched at a cooldown of .125, the last four at .25.
This would be fantastic! but unfortunatly, blizzard have a tendency to not be able to admit that there is something wrong with their new ideas. Every time they patch something, and it's still unbalanced, they will change something else and never undo the first change :/
On September 25 2012 07:43 DanceSC wrote: I just wish Blizzard gets wind of this message, well said NonY
Nony said on his stream just now when I asked that apparently they responded and said they liked the changes, but right now they're focusing on the hots units. To me it sounds like they could eventually change, but they won't be changing initially.
On September 25 2012 07:43 DanceSC wrote: I just wish Blizzard gets wind of this message, well said NonY
Nony said on his stream just now when I asked that apparently they responded and said they liked the changes, but right now they're focusing on the hots units. To me it sounds like they could eventually change, but they won't be changing initially.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
- Carrier -Thor -Void Ray -Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
Currently not as worried about Carrier as much as the new HotS units, but extra special thanks to Nony's video, we're thinking on 2 possibilities in the future:
leashing thing Interceptor launching thing
But let's try to focus on HotS if we can. -Dayvie, from the pro forum (I think we're aloud to post this stuff?)
On September 25 2012 11:08 RavenLoud wrote: 15 extra health is more like it.
Colossus.
Why?
Terrible terrible damage :D:D
From my limited brood war play and spectating though, reaver does seem a lot more fun, although i wasnt there to experience it at the height of the game, the higher volatility of spider mines, reaver shots, higher flat out damage siege tanks is very exciting, watching one of Sayle's casts of proleague + Show Spoiler +
Watch from 7:40
made me wish some of those volatile but skill based mechanics were accessible in sc2
I saw this video, and was quite impressed and didn't even know BW carriers had that design that utilized a players skill to make the carrier even more efficient offensively. It makes me appreciate SC1 and BW more when I never gave the game a chance in the past, rather than play WC3. The fact Blizzard even acknowledged it on their b.net forums and would "consider it" is awesome.
On September 26 2012 01:41 sacrilegious wrote: I saw this video, and was quite impressed and didn't even know BW carriers had that design that utilized a players skill to make the carrier even more efficient offensively. It makes me appreciate SC1 and BW more when I never gave the game a chance in the past, rather than play WC3. The fact Blizzard even acknowledged it on their b.net forums and would "consider it" is awesome.
It's funny, to me all those skill based things you could do in bw look more like bad programming than like deliberate design. I highly doubt that Blizzard programmers actually wanted this mechanic to be in the game. Of course it makes the game more fun, but just like the thing where lurkers can't normally be put on hold, magic boxing mutas and all those kinds of things it seems like they were originally bugs that pro gamers started to abuse. If I'm right, it's really funny, because it means that the big problem with sc2 is its consistent and bug-free programming.
Edit: mutas are magic boxed. That's the bug. Stacking was deliberate for sure.
Don't mean to be a negative nancy but i have a strong feeling these changes will never be implemented because the current Blizzard suffers from so much BW envy.
I really do hope they take a look at this and actually implement these things. I understand that the SC2 team is pretty ambivalent toward Brood War and they are actively seeking ways to differentiate this game from that one, but those differences should be ones that improve the game, not harm it.
The whole "Brood War is a good game; go play it if you like it" attitude sucks for exactly things like this - reusing positive things is a sign of wisdom and acknowledgement that things were done right. Kicking and screaming against those things for the sake of being unique when this uniqueness is inferior just serves to shoot oneself in the foot.
On September 26 2012 03:02 ShadeR wrote: Don't mean to be a negative nancy but i have a strong feeling these changes will never be implemented because the current Blizzard suffers from so much BW envy.
On October 05 2012 15:15 methematics wrote: So is it being tested in the HOTS beta yet?
I spose "lol" would be a suitable response? Someone needs to bump this thread on the Blizzard forums, because they shut up the huge community whine by responding to it, now they can successfully let it die! - clever, very clever.
On October 05 2012 15:23 Alex1Sun wrote: Great post! Let's make carriers more micro intensive!
Watch your wording:
- "more micro intensive" sounds like players HAVE TO work more to use the unit, but that is not the case. - "more microable" would be the positive version where the players are given more options by becoming good enough to micro the unit. The word "microable" isnt a true english word - yet -, but is established pretty well in the eSports scene.
Adopting micro like this for the units would be nice to have some more skill in using them for offensive purposes, because right now we only have "look out, the banelings are coming, its time to spread your marines" micro and some generic unit repositioning for greater concave or avoiding of forcefields. The two burrowed attacking units (widow mine and swarm host) are totally unmicroable as a unit concept and that is terribly boring.
I'm glad it's being looked at and agree with the priority although it seems intelligent to make some changes during beta when the environment is perfect for it.
Can someone in the HoTS beta, PLEASE bump the thread over at the Blizzard forums? I get a strange suspicion that Blizzard think that because they acknowledged the existence of the thread they "got rid of the problem"
Rock: We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it. Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
EDIT:
On October 06 2012 09:20 MasterCynical wrote: Im pretty sure something was leaked form the pro forum of David Kim saying they will add this in.
Not gonna lie, squealing like a fangirl right now.
Rock: We have seen the video. We are very focused on Heart of the Swarm units right now and we don't know what the Carrier will be doing in the beta with all of the new units available on the Stargate. Will it see more use? Less use? We aren't going to make any changes immediately but we will certainly discuss it. Thank you for the post and thanks to the maker of the video.
On September 25 2012 08:42 Zergrusher wrote: Carriers
Why did they have there armor dropped from 4 to 2?
Marines
Why do they have 5 extra health and the +1 range standardly included (compared to bw)?
TBH I think the carrier could stand to lose some HP/Shields if it really did get its original micro.. otherwise NOTHING could ever kill them... especially on maps with chunks of dead space.
On September 25 2012 08:42 Zergrusher wrote: Carriers
Why did they have there armor dropped from 4 to 2?
Marines
Why do they have 5 extra health and the +1 range standardly included (compared to bw)?
TBH I think the carrier could stand to lose some HP/Shields if it really did get its original micro.. otherwise NOTHING could ever kill them... especially on maps with chunks of dead space.
Are you kidding me... Its not even going to make the carrier viable, it just adds more micro depth to it (something which sc2 desperately needs). Mech Terran or Disruption Web is needed to make the carrier viable.
On October 19 2012 08:15 Cabinet Sanchez wrote: Thread deceased, Blizzard got away with this one due to lack of campaigning.
Nony said on his stream just now when I asked that apparently they responded and said they liked the changes, but right now they're focusing on the hots units. To me it sounds like they could eventually change, but they won't be changing initially.
We're seeing some community discussion on units that we shipped with Wings of Liberty. Examples include:
- Carrier -Thor -Void Ray -Ghost
While we are very willing to change these units down the road we are not focused on them for the next few weeks. We are very interested in what kind of strategies we are introducing with the new beta units as well as what types of balance problems we are creating.
Obviously you can post on any subject you like and if you want to talk about older units feel free. We will definitely read your posts on older units. But we probably won't make balance or design changes of any significance to older units anytime soon. Once we stabilize the balance on the new beta units we will take a look to see what changes make sense to older units.
Currently not as worried about Carrier as much as the new HotS units, but extra special thanks to Nony's video, we're thinking on 2 possibilities in the future:
leashing thing Interceptor launching thing
But let's try to focus on HotS if we can. -Dayvie, from the pro forum (I think we're aloud to post this stuff?)
Yay!!! Finally! Thanks everyone and especially tyler for making this happen. It would still be nice if it got a build time or cost reduction buff though!
carrier feels damn sweet to use in the unit tester. the micro is intensive, because you have to left click each target to ensure that your interceptors stay attacking while you micro your carriers. it involves a lot of mouse movement, but if pulled off, carrier could be a force to reckon with.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/24/carrier720.jpg/)
