|
On March 01 2010 17:13 LunarC wrote:
TacticalPanda might have extrapolated a bit with the whole Progamer example but he basically understands alot of what I'm trying to get at. It's not just an APM allocation issue, it's also the way units are designed makes them very free to move about the map. Skills like Psionic Storm, Fungal Growth, and Hunter Seeker, Forcefield, and Vortex are all spells that force movement and therefore good army control, but I don't see many units designed in a way that relies on good army control to be effective. This is the reason armies move similarly and this is the reason that most battles are groups of mobile units clashing. Then it's a frenzy of focusing down counters and countering counter units. This is a result of having hard-coded numerical counters built into the game. Not many battles are decided by complex army control. Instead, they are decided by using the right units. What I'm advocating is making the units that are counters (in form, not just in bonus damage) also have to be controlled correctly to be effective.
For example, an uncontrolled group of Zealots will not nearly be as effective running into a minefield unless they are instructed to run directly into the Tanks, and the Zealots will get decimated without controlling the Dragoons and Psionic Storms at the same time. On the other side of the coin, the Siege Tanks would be destroyed if they are positioned poorly and they would stand no chance if there were no vultures to lay mines, to intercept the Dragoon attacks, and to kill off the Zealots. Note: realize that Zealots don't counter tanks because they do extra damage to armored, and Vultures are not counters to Zealots because they do extra damage to light. They are simply more effective against these units because of the nature of the Seige Tank's minimum range, and because of how each army functions and moves as a whole. They are counter in form, not just number. There is a sort of synergy within the respective armies towards how they move and how they function together to attack the opponent. I don't see the potential for this sort of massive control in Starcraft 2 if most units move/attack similarly and if units are designed with specific counters in mind.
Granted, it's beta. We've already established that.
Who says you can't drag a HSK into the enemy? Does anyone know what happens to the HSK if the unit it was targeted at gets killed? Similarly, there are a lot of hard counters in SC I also.
In SC II Marines do not hard counter Colossus, but with awesome micro you can easily down a Colossus with Marines. Likewise, Hydra's aren't really a direct hard counter to anything, but they are impressive motherfuckers. Do not ever let them reach critical mass lol. Same goes with Zerglings, and most of Zerg units.
Same goes with Stalkers against any unit. OMG, can Protoss abuse the shit out of blink and rape their direct counters (Immortals are a little tougher, but definitely doable with Terrain abuse, and smart blink use).
As for lurkers, banelings fill this niche. You can easily hold a position with these guys. I've yet to see anyone exploit the use of detonating underground though....That's just a small part. Most of these things right now aren't even being utilized to 15% of their capacity because the game is in its infancy.
I think with the direction the game is going now, that unit composition is a little important, but what is far more important is your micro in battle. Wait until you see some Medivac abuse since Medivacs can heal units inside their bay. Boxers invincible marines anyone? :p
|
I don't think anyone is going to approach maximum effective apm in SC2. There is a shiiit-ton to do.
I don't think the problem is massive damage units either, plenty of things still do ALOT of damage:
Colossus DESTROY smaller units just as hard as reavers
Ghosts Emp and cheap as hell nukes are both devastating
Tanks still smash
and just about everything hits harder than sc1 (hydras), and there are still devastating spells that can instantly change the course of a battle (force field, vortex,storm, HUNTER SEEKERS holy shit they raep)
Please give a few examples of "a shiiit-ton to do" at 400 apm. Okay, that's not quite fair, I know that we really don't know how much that would be in terms of SC2. But, I'm talking about the highest of pros, for the E-gaming scene. I think that it is an absolute certainty that the pro's will be able to approach a critical apm, where actions beyond that point become increasingly less useful. In the original this level is ridiculously out of reach because of the pathing, interface, and the more heavily micro-able units. In the new game the pathing and interface are no longer problems, and few units require any individual action. (I sincerely hope that I am wrong though!!! I'm just stating my opinion like the rest of us.)
I really do think that having more micro intensive units is a must. While a-moving will not be the most efficient use of units, it is ridiculously more effective than in the original. Any unit that was used for map control and containment has been removed, with the exception of the siege tank. Which, based on what seems to be the prevailing opinion, is much less viable. The lurker, siege tank, vulture, and reaver (can't leave your base if you're gonna get dropped.) all kept your opponent contained and gave you map control. If your opponent a-moved out, it was gg. On the other hand, in SC2,once you have the magic army composition to counter whatever your opponent is containing you with, all you need to do now, is a-move out of your base with minimal micro.
And yes, devastating spells are still in the game, but the colossi is the only really devastating unit. (Maybe the ultralisk is now, too? I haven't seen one used for real in a replay yet =[ Which is extremely disappointing.) But spells hardly take any micro in comparison to the old game.
I was thinking about hunter seekers, and while they are extremely easy to cast, dodging is quite difficult. I haven't seen the ability used, but I'm assuming that the fungal thing on the infester is similar, storming has always been this way. Maybe this is where some micro can be returned. Instead of the main emphasis being on casting abilities, the awareness and ability to dodge spells may be the new key. Now that it is much easier to cast spells, the only defense against that would be to dodge/predict these! Storm dodging never did make those Korean girls scream like a massive coat of storms across the stream, but maybe this can become the new norm.
|
Although the OP is being accused of essentially being closed-minded and trapped in an old, irrelevant SC1 way of thinking, I think the people who need loosen up a little are the ones here who are automatically opposing constructive criticism solely for the sake of doing so.
If someone expresses a detailed concern about the direction the gameplay will take in higher level play in the future, and thoroughly explains why, it's inappropriate to just scream that the game can't be criticised because it's only been out for a week, nobody could possibly be that good at it yet, and because it's not supposed to be the same as Starcraft 1 anyway. The last argument is particularly invalid because the game IS supposed to be like SC1 to a large extent - I think we all agree that we want them to be similar to some degree, and the key is determining where they should differ.
All I see in the OP is a legitimate concern, which I agree with in principle, that positional play may become less important in SC2, due to the lack of certain types of units. Most of us probably agree that positional aspects of play are something we'd like to see carried over to the next game.
Personally, I think another potential problem for thoughtful positioning is the fact that units of the same faction will now just push each other out of the way when moving through each other - you now don't need to be nearly as careful about how you organise your army. In Starcraft 1, for example, you really need to have your zealots ahead of your dragoons in your army formation, so that when battle happens, your zealots don't waste time being stuck behind goons, and your army can operate at maximum efficiency. In SC2, it really doesn't matter as much because the zealots would just push their way through and squeeze though the goons anyway (which I think increases the feeling I've heard from people that armies feel like clumpy, amorphous "blobs").
In a more succinct form, this indicates that although players may achieve the same apm in SC2, the effectiveness of this APM greatly decreases with the lessening impact of the consequences of those actions. Since the macro requirements are so much more lax in SC2, more apm will be put into micro. As players become more and more efficient and quick with their actions, the skill gap must decrease because of the diminishing effect that each additional action will produce.
I don't totally agree that Macro APM is really less in SC2 (constantly having to cast spells at all of your CC/Nex/Hatches?), but your point about effectiveness is important, and I think we have to look at APM a little more objectively. Yes, we want the game to be mechanically challenging, but I think we all agree that the APM required for things like siege/unsiege, mines, small but vital army positioning adjustments, burrows, etc, are far more healthy and desirable than, say, if we decided that SC2 didn't have enough APM so we introduced a mechanic where if you don't click a certain building every 3 seconds then you lose money.
This latter kind of APM is really sort of "garbage" APM compared to the former - it's doesn't actually improve the game to force players to remember to mindlessly click something all the time. Some of it is OK, but overall we'd all like to see the game require more meaningful actions. An analogy I might use for this (and it's a stretch), is the idea of jobs in an economy, for example. We all want there to be lots of jobs, but having the government tax money from people and then pay some of those same people to build a pointless bridge connecting two uninhabited islands doesn't actually help anybody in the long run, and is actually a waste of money, despite the fact that it does technically "create" more jobs.
|
TacticalPanda might have extrapolated a bit with the whole Progamer example but he basically understands alot of what I'm trying to get at. It's not just an APM allocation issue, it's also the way units are designed makes them very free to move about the map.
I did get a little carried away with the Progamer stuff didn't I? I do totally agree with the movement and positioning points you have. And the counters in form, not just damage buffs. That's some high quality stuff you've got going on =]
Before the beta, I was never worried about the apm requirements being too low. Now with the removal of apm-intensive units, I am worried that this is a possibility. But, he more I think about it, the more it seems that units with spells and abilities may begin to fill that void. There are definitely more of them. And is it just me, or does mana seem to regen faster? I was watching some videos, and I was overwhelmed by the amount of spells being used.
Another important note, is that if there is in fact a "critical apm," it won't matter nearly as much for at least a few years, when build orders and tactics are pretty much set, and both players are playing as optimally as possible. For now, strategy and tactics rule supreme, what an exciting time for SC, eh?
|
On March 01 2010 17:25 Rothbardian wrote:
Who says you can't drag a HSK into the enemy? Does anyone know what happens to the HSK if the unit it was targeted at gets killed? Similarly, there are a lot of hard counters in SC I also.
You can target your own units with HSK. So if you REALLY wanted you could cloak a ghost and have an HSK chase it around until you get near enemies and then and then stop moving...
When the unit the HSK is chasing dies the HSK just continues to the unit's position when it died and blows up there
|
@ TacticalPanda: Um, I suggest watching some FPVods of some SC1 progamers. Not a lot of actual APM is put into useful actions until mid late-game and a lot of that is cycling through control groups, making units, expanding. Then again, they can execute fine army control and have almost complete control over their units, which is possible because of the complexity of different units' movements. Anyway, the effective apm of progamers generally tends to be around 200. Also, watch some FPVods of high level SC2 games and try to pinpoint how they distribute their APM, how they move their troops, how they decide to tech or expand, which units they decide to make, and how effective their control really is on the outcome of battles. Then try to think of alternatives they could have used and how better control might have changed the outcome of a battle. It'll give you a much better sense of how the game actually works.
This idea of "critical apm" is theoretically possible, but pactically impossible in my opinion. Progamers aren't machines you know...
|
Personally, I think another big potential threat to thoughtful positioning is the fact that units of the same faction will push each other out of the way when moving through each other - you now have to be way less careful about how you organise your army. In Starcraft 1 for example, you really need to have your zealots ahead of your dragoons in your army formation, so that when battle happens, your zealots don't waste time being stuck behind goons, and your army can operate at maximum efficiency. In SC2, it really doesn't matter as much because the zealots would just push their way through and squeeze though the goons anyway, which I think increases the feeling I've heard from people that armies feel like clumpy, amorphous "blobs".
This is an extremely important concern that I didn't address. I think that it's becoming more and more evident as the beta goes on that it does not suffice to throw all your units into one hotkey group. While the original game required the different groups because of interface limits, the sequel should "require" separate groups to keep your army in the most optimal attack formation. If the units can stop running past one another, this would make it even more important.
Bravo, for bringing this up in this thread. I was concerned about it for other reasons, such as wall offs, but it really would make a huge difference in the way armies are controlled.
|
On March 01 2010 17:36 TacticalPanda wrote:Show nested quote +
I don't think anyone is going to approach maximum effective apm in SC2. There is a shiiit-ton to do.
I don't think the problem is massive damage units either, plenty of things still do ALOT of damage:
Colossus DESTROY smaller units just as hard as reavers
Ghosts Emp and cheap as hell nukes are both devastating
Tanks still smash
and just about everything hits harder than sc1 (hydras), and there are still devastating spells that can instantly change the course of a battle (force field, vortex,storm, HUNTER SEEKERS holy shit they raep)
Please give a few examples of "a shiiit-ton to do" at 400 apm. Okay, that's not quite fair, I know that we really don't know how much that would be in terms of SC2. But, I'm talking about the highest of pros, for the E-gaming scene. I think that it is an absolute certainty that the pro's will be able to approach a critical apm, where actions beyond that point become increasingly less useful. In the original this level is ridiculously out of reach because of the pathing, interface, and the more heavily micro-able units. In the new game the pathing and interface are no longer problems, and few units require any individual action. (I sincerely hope that I am wrong though!!! I'm just stating my opinion like the rest of us.) I really do think that having more micro intensive units is a must. While a-moving will not be the most efficient use of units, it is ridiculously more effective than in the original. Any unit that was used for map control and containment has been removed, with the exception of the siege tank. Which, based on what seems to be the prevailing opinion, is much less viable. The lurker, siege tank, vulture, and reaver (can't leave your base if you're gonna get dropped.) all kept your opponent contained and gave you map control. If your opponent a-moved out, it was gg. On the other hand, in SC2,once you have the magic army composition to counter whatever your opponent is containing you with, all you need to do now, is a-move out of your base with minimal micro. And yes, devastating spells are still in the game, but the colossi is the only really devastating unit. (Maybe the ultralisk is now, too? I haven't seen one used for real in a replay yet =[ Which is extremely disappointing.) But spells hardly take any micro in comparison to the old game. I was thinking about hunter seekers, and while they are extremely easy to cast, dodging is quite difficult. I haven't seen the ability used, but I'm assuming that the fungal thing on the infester is similar, storming has always been this way. Maybe this is where some micro can be returned. Instead of the main emphasis being on casting abilities, the awareness and ability to dodge spells may be the new key. Now that it is much easier to cast spells, the only defense against that would be to dodge/predict these! Storm dodging never did make those Korean girls scream like a massive coat of storms across the stream, but maybe this can become the new norm.
Let me just talk about this for a second. There will be a new SC II skill the inverse of the SC I skill. Since the pathing is so good now, and there are units that deal a lot of AoE damage, more people will be purposelly using hotkeys to keep small groups of units controlled in battle to keep them from clumping. This is no different than the skill in SC I where you have to be watchful of your units and attend them because the AI and pathing is so horrible.
I assure you, the APM required to play a "critical" or "perfect" game in SC II is so far out of reach its not even funny. Try going 5-6 base vs 5-6 base and keep up with macro and micro even at 400 APM. It's impossible. Take note that 400 APM in BW is equivalent to about 270-290 APM in SC II (Their counter).
As for not many individual units to micro....you are wrong there also. HT/Ghost/Infester/Colossus/Tanks/Banelings/Stalkers/Medivacs/Warp Prisms/etc. Not to mention Marines. In regards, to A-Move being efficient...that is ludicrous. A-moving into an army being micro'd will result in the enemy hardly losing anything, and you losing everything. That is devastating and anything, but efficient. I know this, since I've been there before lol.
Colossus can easily control map. Abusing the cliff mechanic...so can the Nydus Worm, Warp Prism, and banelings.
The game has only been out for two weeks. BW has been played for 13 years, of course they will know and use every little intricacy. You can't expect a new game to be at the level of BW, nor was BW, what it is now 2 weeks into its beta.
I understand that we each have our subjective differences in taste, but I truly believe that SC II has a far higher skill ceiling than SC I.
|
@LunarC
I will definitely look up some of the higher level SC2 fpvods, I must admit that the one's I have been watching haven't all been of top players =x
|
To address your point:
First, have you played the beta? It is pretty ridiculous to think people will be even APPROACHING critical APM in the game, as it is with nearly all rts's. People get 150 apm playing HON, with one unit....
There just as many units with extreme capacity to micro as in SC1. All ranged units can be microed just like goons in sc1, Hellions can kite slower units just like a vulture, as can reapers with cliffwalk, blink has infinite micro capacity, sentries are absolutely micro factories, and drop micro is even more crazy with medivac healing as has already been mentioned.
When you complain about "devastating units" being removed, only the lurker and vulture have (colossus replacing reaver), and there have been many "devastating" things added (whether they are abilities or not really doesn't matter from a gameplay sense).
So, I don't believe either of these things is a problem with SC2, I DO believe there is a problem though, and it relates exactly to the units you mentioned (which incidentally don't require much micro at all once set up). I expressed my opinion a few posts back, I don't know if you read, it so here it is again:
+ Show Spoiler +
I was referring to units which require or create static (or nearly static in the case of the reaver) positioning and setup to become effective (trading mobility for effectiveness). Something which I believe is lacking from SC2.
What me and I believe the OP of this topic and several other people are trying to get at is that the vastly increased mobility of the units in SC2 is creating a deemphasis on terrain positioning, defense, and the splitting of forces.
A good example of how lack of mobility puts greater emphasis on positioning/setup/defense is the difference between TvT and ZvZ in BW. In TvT the game plays very defensively and slowly due to mines and tanks both requiring setup time and remaining static in their most effective position (when I say vulture I am really mostly speaking of mines). The absolute other end of the spectrum is ZvZ where all the units have extreme mobility, the game is mostly about massing units in the right composition and decided by one or two large battles.
The game ends quickly in ZvZ because it is far more advantageous to bring all of your units to the main battle to contribute than to leave them in a planned defensive position where they would be more effective. You don't see players in a TvT unsieging all their tanks and bringing them in to one huge battle, because the tanks are far more powerful sieged in a selected point.
These games are extremes, most people do not enjoy TvT as much because the units are SOOO positionally and staticly strong, the game is too defensive and slow. Most people dislike ZvZ because the units are too mobile, the game is too fast and aggressive, the game is decided in one or two battles, DESPITE the fact that ZvZ is one of the MOST micro-intensive match-ups. A good game requires both mobility and static/positional units to make gameplay more entertaining and back and forth, making it better to leave units out of a main battle or set up a static defensive line that will not be able to move across the map and destroy the opponent.
The lack of defensive, static, deployable units in Sc2 is, we feel, contributing to a playing experience a bit too much on the mobile side of the spectrum.
I also understand that this is a new game, people DO need time to figure it out, I am simply discussing my current impression due to gameplay, streams, and the observable lack of units that seem to perform a static and defensive purpose. Just because the game is new doesn't mean we can't make observations and discuss it, just that we will have to adapt these theories as the game is figured out.
The problem is not the capacity for massive damage (plenty of that)
The problem is not that micro is dead.
The problem, as the OP stated, is too much mobility.
|
Okay, I've played around 100 games in the beta so far. I think saying that you can a+move units and be successful is a gross exaggeration -- focus fire is incredibly important, as it always has been, and being able to control many smaller squads to focus fire down many of their troops instead of just one massive army will still give you an insanely awesome advantage. If you just a+move they'll each pick a different target and you'll fail miserably, it's a really, really, REALLY huge difference.
There's still tons of room for micro. Honestly I'm surprised that you guys remember lurkers and tanks as the epitome of micro, they're units that *I* personally remember massing the crap out of and basically not having to worry about them as much as things like mutas, dragoons, etc...
There's also a lot more troop balance required, and with that comes troop positioning -- marauders in front of your marines, roaches in front of your hydras, lings attacking the armor while the roaches attack the infantry, etc... there's still such a huge advantage from having amazing micro.
|
You guys are starting to convince me =P
But it really depends on the game length of SC2. It will be critical whether the games usually end with players usually only have taken their natural, or if the average game will last much longer than that. Hopefully it is a balance similar to the original, because I think that is about as close to optimum for an average game time, with great opportunity for some long nail biters. I think that off of 2 bases that "critical apm" may be reached. And by critical apm, I am in no way saying perfect starcraft. Just that each additional action will yield diminishing returns. At the very least, the stage at the beginning of the game, where just about every unit can be handled perfectly will be extended significantly.
But, I think you're right that at later tech, the skill ceiling will be huge, but it seems that the lower tier units at the moment are quite bland in their current rock/paper/scissorish nature. I guess that now I just hope that the early/early-mid game can keep the excitement of the original!
Edit:
Okay, I officially give in now. I think it's just been too long since I've actually played, starting to take for granted all the shit that really is going on all the time. You guys made some very valid points! Still agree with the lack of static/defense type units and the ridiculous mobility of everything.
What I was thinking about the game and what I had actually been seeing of it, weren't quite lining up. I just should've bit my tongue for a day and thought about it for a while. I don't mind being wrong though, when it means SC2 is still a pretty baller game!
|
|
|
Very good OP, addresses the issue that really needs to be addressed before the release.
On February 28 2010 13:27 Fontong wrote:
He is speaking of something like 1a2a3a syndrome, only with every race rather than just protoss.
1a2a3a syndrome is actually pretty good way of describing this.
|
@ filthi: Sorry if it sounds like we think armies can be A-moved. Maybe the original post sounded that way, and I think I've refined my idea of what needs to be changed since then.
Your idea of troop positioning is exactly what Rothbardian (I think) was referring to when he talked about "mobile positioning" as opposed to static positioning. No, Lurkers and Tanks are not the epitome of micro, they are the epitome of strategic positional play, or "static positioning" I suppose. Mutalisks and Dragoons are very mobile units, the kind of which it seems like Starcraft 2 is full of.
However, it was the static but extremely powerful units combined with more mobile units that forced the usually more mobile opposition to have to engage carefully and exploit their mobility to gain map control. For the more static army it was a battle for map control using strategic static points. Defilers were a unique unit in that were literally able to create strategic static points to move units towards. High Templar were a unique unit in their ability to turn these static points into very dangerous positions. Also, Arbiters were units that were able to poke holes into strategically placed static units and were able to bypass those units completely.
Why does Zerg exert map control with hydralisks in ZvP? Because they are very mobile and strong in numbers. Why does Protoss attempt to break/delay the attack? Because once High Templar are out, Protoss gains the ability to not only kill masses of hydralisks, but also to deny them good positioning. In TvZ, mm is a very mobile force that is difficult to deal with. So, Mutalisks are used as even more mobile units to prevent the Terran from moving out. Lurkers are used to gain further positional advantage. They exert control over static locations of the map, preventing the mobile Terran force from running around the map.
Now with the overabundance of mobile units, it seems like static positional control has been downplayed because those limitations of movement don't apply to any of the races. Most of the special abilities that deal with location control are with the Protoss (Psionic Storm, Force Field, Vortex, Mass Recall). There are no Zerg units that can exert location control (I'd say creep is the major kind of location control for Zerg). Terran still has the Siege Tank and Bunker, but now there are so many ways to break Tanks and most kinds of static units that are crucial for location control (especially without spider mines) that it's much more benefical to use a highly mobile force and use Siege Tanks primarily as temporary heavy artillery while keeping the entire army moving. This overall mobility creates shorter, more intense battles with less emphasis on exerting control over a location and more emphasis on the micro at hand. So, shorter, faster paced battles are more common.
|
people should really stop with the retarded "it's beta" excuse if it isn't fixed it will never be
|
On March 01 2010 20:09 Qeet wrote:
people should really stop with the retarded "it's beta" excuse if it isn't fixed it will never be
Some things aren't meant to be fixed. SC2 is supposed to be a new game with a different mindset, and I don't think people should expect SC2 to be a carbon copy of SC1 with improved graphics.
A Warcraft III player once said in an interview that it won't necessarily be the WCIII or SC players who are the more dominant force in SC2. It's going to come down to the individual and who's better. I think that's the way it should be, as opposed to SC2 playing EXACTLY like SC1 so it basically becomes the same game with better graphics.
And as many have said, some of these issues aren't for Blizzard to fix. Strategical depth takes years and years to develop, not DAYS. People are expecting rigorous build orders and razor edge timings within only a week of the beta coming out, which is just way too much to expect IMO. Players like Louder and Nony have said that they CAN beat David Kim, but they need to catch up to his level of understanding of SC2 FIRST.
It IS a new game. Players WILL be able to find strategic depth out of it, and there WILL be other opportunities to do advanced micro similar to SC1. Blizzard shouldn't have to purposefully dumb down the user interface just so players can exploit THE SAME glitches from SC1 and play the game EXACTLY the same way so that SC2 is at the same level of understanding that SC1 is after ELEVEN years.
Did you know SC1 was going to have all this positioning and APM requirements back in 1999? Heck, people didn't even THINK about APM back then!
People who think SC2 lacks strategical depth need to look at SC1 back when it first came out and realistically ask themselves: "Did the game really seem to have that much potential back when it first came out? If not, can I really make conclusions about SC2 right now?"
It's not just balance patches, or changing the game. It's the map set, and the players. SC1 has a metagame, and so does SC2. SC2 is a NEW game, so the metagame has JUST STARTED developing. Trying to make assumptions about the potential of SC2 is like saying that Terran in SC1 is the weakest race because of a lack of mobility. Guess what? That's exactly what people said when SC1 first came out, and it stayed that way for years until Boxer showed people how to use Terran effectively.
People complained about lack of mobility in certain races when SC1 first came out, and now people are complaining there's too much mobility? ... It's a new game, give the PLAYERS time to make the game deep and meaningful, and don't try to theorycraft the game's potential. Theorycrafting tells us very little, as many of us know from the myriad of strategy forum posts for SC1.
|
Well, it is true that over time the game will become more interesting. Even without patches gameplay has improved and changed in SC/WC3 and also with SC:BW, TFT and subsequent patches the game was improved so much you can't reasonably expect that the current beta build is conclusive evidence.
That said, it's precisely because people make these sort of posts that the game does change for the better. Imagine if no one ever bothered campaigning for more emphasis on map control, do you think Blizzard would change the game in that direction?
There's a subtle difference between a concept like map control and something like "usefulness of micro" though. Players will always strive to be better at micro and even if the gains are small, they will eventually become important enough that you can by then say "SC2 requires heavy micro.", but map control is more arcane, more influenced by design, imo, and it's something to post about if you think it's very much lacking.
|
On March 02 2010 00:45 Mothxal wrote:
That said, it's precisely because people make these sort of posts that the game does change for the better. Imagine if no one ever bothered campaigning for more emphasis on map control, do you think Blizzard would change the game in that direction?
At the same time, if Blizzard changed the game every time someone made a post that said "This needs to be changed," there would never be a final product because everyone wants a different game.
And if they made Brood War with improved graphics I think people would complain, ESPECIALLY casual players. Blizzard has a very wide customer base to appeal to. Obviously they want Starcraft II to succeed as an e-sport but it's not like they think ONLY the hardcore gamers and proscene matter. The game needs to draw casual players too both for enjoyment and profit reasons.
|
On March 01 2010 20:09 Qeet wrote:
people should really stop with the retarded "it's beta" excuse if it isn't fixed it will never be
You know what's wrong with the forums nowadays? 90%+ of the people with complaints don't have the beta. Show me a post with somebody who's complaining there isn't enough to do in SC2 and I will bet you immediately they don't have a beta key. Just about all these type of threads are prefaced with "I don't have the beta". People who have actually played the game know that adding MBS and auto-mine and unlimited group selection doesn't mean there's nothing for players to do.
There are tons of stuff to do in SC2. For one thing, there are way more options to harass and attack almost everywhere at once. You can jetpack, blink, walk over, burrow-move through chokes with some units and just teleport with things like warpgates and nydus canals. It's a totally different type of gameplay with things like lurkers and spider mines pretty much not in tune with it. The game is more about skirmishes everywhere instead of two big balls of units slowly pushing towards each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
