|
On February 25 2010 21:25 Audiohelper123 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:14 Nafaltar wrote:
I find it hilarious how people say that micro is none existent in SC2 while it is the fact that micro is much more important compared to macro in the sequel that is allowing WC3 players to take a number of top spots. In BW micro on 3 zealots won't save you from 18 speedlings either. Its just that BW has been figured out to a very high degree so most of the time armys will be fairly even matched when they do clash, because both players know what works and how to be able to do this. While in most SC2 games at the moment one player lucks out and gets a BO win or one player is just vastly better than another. Yes a few micro elements have gone missing but we did get a couple new ones aswell. wc3 players are taking top spots for the following reasons: 1. not everyone has a beta key and I'm guessing you included because you don't know anything 2. the game is easier and wc3 players are competent enough to be good at it Micro isn't more important than macro or any stupid simplification like that. Macro and macro were reduced and everything got easier. You had to do everything at once in brood war while thinking about strategy at the same time, that's what made it so unique. It's not a click fest you morons learn to play
Hi Audiohelper123,
It's hard to take your opinion seriously with all those childish insults. That is all  .
|
On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote:
I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard.
qft.
exactly my thoughts.
who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance.
the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is
|
On February 25 2010 21:30 bendez wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:25 Audiohelper123 wrote:On February 25 2010 21:14 Nafaltar wrote:
I find it hilarious how people say that micro is none existent in SC2 while it is the fact that micro is much more important compared to macro in the sequel that is allowing WC3 players to take a number of top spots. In BW micro on 3 zealots won't save you from 18 speedlings either. Its just that BW has been figured out to a very high degree so most of the time armys will be fairly even matched when they do clash, because both players know what works and how to be able to do this. While in most SC2 games at the moment one player lucks out and gets a BO win or one player is just vastly better than another. Yes a few micro elements have gone missing but we did get a couple new ones aswell. wc3 players are taking top spots for the following reasons: 1. not everyone has a beta key and I'm guessing you included because you don't know anything 2. the game is easier and wc3 players are competent enough to be good at it Micro isn't more important than macro or any stupid simplification like that. Macro and macro were reduced and everything got easier. You had to do everything at once in brood war while thinking about strategy at the same time, that's what made it so unique. It's not a click fest you morons learn to play Hi Audiohelper123, It's hard to take your opinion seriously with all those childish insults. That is all .
Hi bendez
it's hard to take you seriously when you're stupid and don't know anything. That is all
|
Seems to me like theres actually going to be a fair bit of large army control in the game anyway, as the units naturally seem to 'clump' together much more, it will be quite a hard task to be splitting up big armies late game and get flanks going correctly to avoid getting stomped on by AoE...
|
jesus christ look at all these freakin noobs trying to argue with people who actually know wtf they are talking about lol
all the top players and legends should just get together and make a big petition or w/e and keep harassing blizzard to fix these problems during the beta =P
|
On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote:
I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
How does this logic don't imply that FPS should have build in aiming bots? Aiming correctly is what player wants his controlled character to do (some tactical shooters have this option). It is always a matter of balance what skills you want the game to test.
SC also balance it, medics auto heal becouse controlling m&m is already hard.
|
On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote:
I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard.
Exactly, a game is like a puzzle, and to entertain and challenge you cannot have the puzzle solve itself, with minimal contribution from the...puzzled 
|
On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote:
I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is
Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing.
|
Im curious to see what the TL staff, ret etc knows about the AI issue... beacuse im sure you talked to devs about it over at the past Blizzcons etc? What was their take on it???
|
On February 25 2010 21:46 bendez wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote:
I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing.
and what aspect is this going to be? everything is reduced. Is there some aspect youre hiding from us?
|
On February 25 2010 21:51 Senx wrote:
Im curious to see what the TL staff, ret etc knows about the AI issue... beacuse im sure you talked to devs about it over at the past Blizzcons etc? What was their take on it???
the devs weren't even able to notice that units turn around to attack whats chasing them, they are oblivious to everything.
|
On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre?  There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable.
Actual destructible terrain, being able to zoom out as far as you want, units that can move and shoot, units that act realistic, units that take cover, units that can take care of themself, less base building etc are things many consider are things that have progressed the genre in the last decade or so.
Now, I'm perfectly fine with Starcraft being a more arcade experience, but many want more realistic battles and unit behavior, while at the same time cutting out (what they view is boring) base building. If you don't believe me just compare Starcraft with Company of Heroes on metacritic.
Some posters here are arguing that Blizzard should just ignore everyone but the hardcore crowd, but what they are missing is that even with a game like Starcraft that got such a large competitive gaming scene, the hardcore crowd is still a small minority of their customers.
The first Starcraft sold 11 million copies, half of those never connected to Battle.net at all, and those that did very few got into competitive gaming.
|
|
|
On February 25 2010 21:54 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre? There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Now, I'm perfectly fine with Starcraft being a more arcade experience, but many want more realistic battles and unit behavior, while at the same time cutting out (what they view is boring) base building. If you don't believe me just compare Starcraft with Company of Heroes on metacritic.
go rent terminator 3. You dont even need to use your hands for this one! no need to build a base or think about a single thing
the esports scene in korea is what makes blizzard the rts kings. The ppl who want to see things blow up are going to buy the game regardless of how hard it is. However if you make the game super simple you lose the core that keeps the game alive for years to come.
|
Is it an audio interview? If not can someone post them here so broken links won't stop the process=)
|
On February 25 2010 21:46 bendez wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote:
I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing.
On February 25 2010 11:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Zergling surround and worker micro is something that was so important to the early game of BW that decided games based on how you performed it.
so you are saying this gone is a good thing, bendez? in every little detail of the game can be significance for the final outcome, so it may very well be that certain aspects of strategy games will have more emphasis in sc2, only that those are not what made bw such a great and ridiculously highly skilled game.
guess why they called savior the maestro - not because the game took control from him in his ability to orchestrate beautiful and deadly attacks to crush his opponents.
|
On February 25 2010 21:59 Audiohelper123 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:54 Eury wrote:On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre? There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Now, I'm perfectly fine with Starcraft being a more arcade experience, but many want more realistic battles and unit behavior, while at the same time cutting out (what they view is boring) base building. If you don't believe me just compare Starcraft with Company of Heroes on metacritic. go rent terminator 3. You dont even need to use your hands for this one! no need to build a base or think about a single thing
Please leave this thread alone. You are pretty much ruining all constructive discussion, as small as it may be.
|
On February 25 2010 22:02 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:59 Audiohelper123 wrote:On February 25 2010 21:54 Eury wrote:On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre? There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Now, I'm perfectly fine with Starcraft being a more arcade experience, but many want more realistic battles and unit behavior, while at the same time cutting out (what they view is boring) base building. If you don't believe me just compare Starcraft with Company of Heroes on metacritic. go rent terminator 3. You dont even need to use your hands for this one! no need to build a base or think about a single thing Please leave this thread alone. You are pretty much ruining all constructive discussion, as small as it may be. isn't this ironic. I felt the same way when reading the garbage you guys posted except I wanted to flip over my desk and every other object in sight.
|
On February 25 2010 22:04 Audiohelper123 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 22:02 Eury wrote:On February 25 2010 21:59 Audiohelper123 wrote:On February 25 2010 21:54 Eury wrote:On February 25 2010 20:39 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:The biggest complain I have seen from the general gaming audience regarding Starcraft 2 is that its way too old school, and it have ignored all progress that have been made in the genre for the last decade. Blizzard isn't going to further fuel such sentiments with dumbing down the AI even more. Progress in the genre? There has only been regress since the release of BW. I'm serious. There is a reason an 11 year old game is the only game that has made pro-gaming viable. Now, I'm perfectly fine with Starcraft being a more arcade experience, but many want more realistic battles and unit behavior, while at the same time cutting out (what they view is boring) base building. If you don't believe me just compare Starcraft with Company of Heroes on metacritic. go rent terminator 3. You dont even need to use your hands for this one! no need to build a base or think about a single thing Please leave this thread alone. You are pretty much ruining all constructive discussion, as small as it may be. isn't this ironic. I felt the same way when reading the garbage you guys posted except I wanted to flip over my desk and every other object in sight.
Think you need to calm down here, just realize Blizzard won't cater to such a minority that we are. Just get over it :C
|
On February 25 2010 22:01 Ghardo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 21:46 bendez wrote:On February 25 2010 21:32 Ghardo wrote:On February 25 2010 21:18 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On February 25 2010 21:02 cerebralz wrote:
I know what the doubters are saying, and i don't disagree totally. However, what is the alternative? As a developer, it doesn't make sense to not improve the pathing or the unit AI, or have smart-casting, or any number of things you're talking about. It's a newer, different game and it should be improved over the older one. The fact that pro players had to have these ridiculous skills to overcome the "dumbness" of the BW unit AI to do what they want them to do, doesn't mean that they should intentionally make it that way in SC2.
A lot of things we watch in BW are game 'bugs' that ultimately became entertaining. I can see the purist fan wanting to see some of that because they are used to being entertained in a certain way with BW. I get that. From a spectator perspective, it was exciting, and very clear to see Boxer dancing wraiths around carriers, or 3 marines dodging lurker spines, or July raping a whole base with 6 mutas, or 10 goliaths holding against 2 control groups of mutas. Keep in mind this is a different game. You won't see things like pushing up vultures through mineral lines, or muta-stacking, or hold position lurkers.
There's a lot of time between now and when the 3rd installment hits the shelves. A lot can change, but some advancements should stay. Improving the pathing makes perfect sense. But SC is a game of chess. Don't let the pieces make (too many) intelligent moves on their own. Provide the pieces but don't have your pawns make all the right moves by default. There is no improvement there except for technological. It's not a 'dumbness' not to have them. It's putting the game out there in an objective state so that people can come up with the right moves. It is crucial for game makers to understand this. For the past decade no one got it except for Blizzard. qft. exactly my thoughts. who could measure, how could you express the geniusness of e.g. piano play, painting, brood war if there was an instance in the background that made the right moves for you? bw is a form of art, of very high skill and thus it's a misconception imho to take away steps from the players/artists in their individual/creative performance. the game becomes shallow, so the exact opposite of what bw is Perhaps smarter AI will put more emphasis on other aspects of the game, such as map control, backdoor, guerrilla warfare, etc. I don't think game will become shallow. Emphasis will be shifted towards other aspect of the game, and I think this is good thing. Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 11:21 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
Zergling surround and worker micro is something that was so important to the early game of BW that decided games based on how you performed it. so you are saying this gone is a good thing, bendez? in every little detail of the game can be significance for the final outcome, so it may very well be that certain aspects of strategy games will have more emphasis in sc2, only that those are not what made bw such a great and ridiculously highly skilled game. guess why they called savior the maestro - not because the game took control from him in his ability to orchestrate beautiful and deadly attacks to crush his opponents.
We're not saying it is not important. However, units shouldn't be stupid by default. Most of the micro skill put into this is mostly because pros have no other choice; either micro your units or have them die because they can't even take care of themselves properly. Micro should enhance the units not a method of keeping crappy AI in line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
