|
In the spirit of not slacking off, I interviewed Nazgul and took it as an opportunity to walk down memory lane and (lovingly) make fun of Testie's hair.
+ Show Spoiler +
-Nazgul: The Modern Age. Nazgul talks about SC2, and specifically about the future of e-sports and StarCraft's place in it. There is no doubt in his mind about whether or not the game will be a success, only whether it will reach the heights franchise fans have long sought.
One question: Who would you like to see interviewed/profiled next? I've already asked a few people and would love to hear some new names suggested. And if you suggest someone who isn't a TL poster, feel free to drop me a hint as to how to contact them so I don't have to go on any search. But if that's not available, I will search.
|
Nice read, I really hope that Blizzard will fix the game...
|
Yep Nazgul is right on the money totaly agree with him
|
cool interview.
Make Sc2 Harder!!
|
I'm not sure he's right about the equalising skill part (then again he should know better than me)
but except for maybe that part I wholeheartedly agree with everything he says.
@OP since you had a little flashback introduction I feel like you should have mentioned Nazgul's own pro gamer carreer as well, not just elkys and grrrs.
Other people I'd like to see interviewed would be Hotbid and Nony.
Thx for your efforts!
|
Nice interview. Interesting insights from Nazgul. I share many of his views.
We've played a couple of interesting games, but it's always been about build orders, unit composition, backstabbing and timings making the most difference rather than micro.
|
Lovely interview 
|
On March 04 2010 21:09 LaLuSh wrote:
Nice interview. Interesting insights from Nazgul. I share many of his views.
We've played a couple of interesting games, but it's always been about build orders, unit composition, backstabbing and timings making the most difference rather than micro.
This comes up time and again but I don't understand why the logical conclusion is that the game will have a low skill ceiling as opposed to: people are still developing their understanding of the game and aren't playing very well yet. Or to put it another way, why do people expect micro to play a huge part when they are still getting to grips with the other elements of the game?
EDIT - Apologies for jumping in like that by the way since it's not the topic of the thread and it was indeed a well-written and interesting interview.
|
because you're doing a lot less than before and that by definition lowers the ceiling
|
On March 04 2010 21:52 Audiohelper123 wrote:
because you're doing a lot less than before and that by definition lowers the ceiling
That's the crux of it though, are they doing less because there really is less to do or because they are still learning the game and have yet to begin pushing the boundaries of what is possible?
|
Here's a spelling mistake you might want to fix.
"It’s likely the A-team Koreans are continuing to play StarCraft 1 as that’s what they are goot at and receive high salaries for. "
All in all, I definitely agree with what Liquid'Nazgul says about starcraft 2 with they way things are looking like right now. I really doubt Blizzard will fix this. Or maybe some mods to make the game harder can like become the standard, than the original game itself. That's the only solution I see to the current problem, is to take the solution into our own hands and mod sc2 to make it harder.
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
On March 04 2010 21:20 Bane_ wrote:
why do people expect micro to play a huge part when they are still getting to grips with the other elements of the game?
Because people see for probable future. When people will understand the game (~half year), the game will be empty without micro and positional tactics.
|
Agreed alot with him - although i didn't play sc1 alot, if at all i always watched alot of VOD's over youtube and such. The element of "wow that move was SICK" has pretty much evapourated - so many things have disappeared such as "hit and run micro" - it's almost better not to press anything as everything fires/hits too fast anyway that it's less beneficial, "auto surrounds" - this is probaly the most ridiculous thing i've seen in terms of lack of effort for such a reward.
I just dislike the little things that seem to remove effort from the game, but rather enforce you to do nothing - such as the 2 "moves" listed above, and there is so much more that i won't even go into detail right now. Units do too much damage, or just fire too fast that the little moments that leave you in awe are replaced with, "oh i can do that too", i dislike it.
Damage just happens too fast, and positioning doesn't mean as much as it should.
|
From a casual players standpoint I don't agree with some points. I played starcraft 1 from the very first day until wc3 came out. I have never watched korean tv and was no progamer, but I was happy to see that the AI was improved for wc3. Learning how to properly move the starting workers to the crystals needed some training, but after that almost everyone learned how to do it. So the only thing left was the feeling of annoyance. There were many things you needed to do to avoid the flaws of the AI in sc1. The pathfinding was gruesome for example.
Anyways I'm sure there will be enough flaws in SC2, that the progamers will find and (ab)use in the future. It's just to early to judge it imo. It took years until sc1 became the game it is now and I only played those first years. It took years for people to come up with those 'moves'.
I never liked wc3 as much as sc1, but I felt that with the reign of Korea over Starcraft it left no room for the casual player. Although the source of that problem was the not yet introduced matchfinding system in battle.net.
Now with the lack of AI errors in SC2 I'm sure that the progamer that are creative and still willing to learn will prove to the rest what makes them better. The ones that rely too much on their past efforts and won't fully commit to the new game will play in B-Teams or stay with sc1.
Side note to the interview: The gamers who are equally good will win in 50%. That's a coinflip, but isn't this the same thing in sc1?
|
On March 04 2010 21:20 Bane_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 21:09 LaLuSh wrote:
Nice interview. Interesting insights from Nazgul. I share many of his views.
We've played a couple of interesting games, but it's always been about build orders, unit composition, backstabbing and timings making the most difference rather than micro. This comes up time and again but I don't understand why the logical conclusion is that the game will have a low skill ceiling as opposed to: people are still developing their understanding of the game and aren't playing very well yet. Or to put it another way, why do people expect micro to play a huge part when they are still getting to grips with the other elements of the game? EDIT - Apologies for jumping in like that by the way since it's not the topic of the thread and it was indeed a well-written and interesting interview.
Every step up the tech tree is such a hard counter to the lower tiers. I dunno but it feels as if there aren't any soft counters. If someone starts producing a certain unit countering your lower tier unit it just rolls your units so fast it's not even a challenge.
It's like they gave every unit ridiculous amounts of a specific attribute so it could be called a "counter". They gave roach 200000 armor, hydra +20000 damage against certain armor types, Marauder a slowing attack and +10000 against certain armor types etc etc.
The result of it all is that it makes certain units obsolete after a point in the game. Lings deal like 1 damage to roaches, what's the point in using them? 5 roaches literally take out 30 lings with 3-4 if not all of them surviving.
In Starcraft you need to micro to make it work. No unit deals +over9000 damage to a certain unit type. And if they do (let's take vulture vs zeal as an example), they require alot of attention and micro, and they're very fragile units if mismicroed.
Mismicro in SC2? No problem. It's a hard counter anyway the opponent's units deal 0 damage.
|
At BlizzCon 08, blizzard showed a clip of SC2 where the zerglings actually swarmed instead of moving in a single line. Everyone cheered, but this one kid at the back yelled "THIS IS BS. ZERLINGS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SWARM. YOU RUINED SC2". He got escorted out. True story.
|
With good hit-n-run micro can a marauder beat pre-charge zealots/slow zerglings assuming it can slowdown all of them?
I'd test it myself but got no beta key! From the streams it just looks like it could allow some vulture-esque micro.
|
On March 05 2010 00:10 Pupsilein wrote:
Side note to the interview: The gamers who are equally good will win in 50%. That's a coinflip, but isn't this the same thing in sc1?
example a: equally good players battle it out, the player whose micro/macro slips first will probably lose. one game deciding aspect very prominent in X. bo advantages/disadvantages are another aspect/dimension which decides games based on strategy/luck/calculation.
example b: equally good players battle it out, the player who got the superior bo / counter to bo of the other will probably win as micro and macro mistakes are not as heavily punished as in other instances (thx to AAI = auto AI). the aspect of the right choice of bos and respective counters is the prominent game deciding factor in Y.
you may assign sc:bw and sc2 to X and Y
|
Nice read.
I do not agree with him stating that build order is a "coin-flip" thing. Especially after saying "if everyone plays perfectly...". Come on - if you play perfectly, how can build order be a "coin-flip" thing? You would always get the perfect build order for the situation...
So either it is not possible to play perfectly (which means the players skill is never high enough in order to not matter) - which I believe is the case, or build order is actually a skill, and it is not static. You have to scout, see what the opponent is building and adapt, and defy his important tech by harassment. How is that not skill?
One thing I am worried about is that the units in SC2 cross distances so fast, it almost makes it possible to roll a huge "ball" across the map and get everywhere in time. That surely decreases depth and need for multitasking.
|
On March 05 2010 00:36 bendez wrote:
At BlizzCon 08, blizzard showed a clip of SC2 where the zerglings actually swarmed instead of moving in a single line. Everyone cheered, but this one kid at the back yelled "THIS IS BS. ZERLINGS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SWARM. YOU RUINED SC2". He got escorted out. True story.
:o we'll see what blizzard does. It's the same with world of warcraft where at some point they just wanted to make more money and thereby making the game more casual.
I hope for the hardcore players they actually fix tons of little things in this game and make it much much better.
|
Amazing read, but it kind of makes me sad. As Nazgul says he loves this game as I do and many other really good / professional players. The game evolves from day to day and its just the beta yet. There are still a lot of parts which can be fixed or adjusted so they fit e-Sports more.
To name a specific example would be the unit colission, it should be quiet a bit larger, because the spectators can distinguish single units better. It would also allow more micro actions like sniping the ghost in PvT.
I think Blizzard is aware of all those facts, but is struggling because they need to find a good path between e-Sports and brining fun to the casual players. Right now my honest opinion is that it wouldn't destroy the fun for a casual player to add a few things that the 'top' players are mentioning.
And as the final statement I'm pretty sure no game can ever accomplish was Starcraft: Broodwar did. Starcraft 2 definately has the potential to dominate more than just 2-4 years, but Blizzard needs to support Starcraft 2 as they supported Broodwar to accomplish that.
|
Maybe there should be an option to disable mbs/automine and inlimited unitselection. Or just disavle those for plat and/or proleague.
Also i am quite sad that sc2 tries to please everyone, because there are many games for casual players, but not for hardcore gamers.
|
@Pupsilein Not having to assign your workers at the beginning are more indicative of the problem, not so much the problem themselves. More than anything it points to the AI problems that make the rest of the game... boring... to watch that is. Equal skilled matches didn't come down to a coin flip so much in BW. Even high-end evenly skilled players make mistakes and those will be what causes one to fail and one to win. But in watching SC2 most of the win/losses seem to come down to what units they've chosen over how they've played with them.
I agree with Nazgul a lot I suppose.
|
Nice interviews, I just spent like an hour reading them all. Keep em coming.
|
On March 05 2010 00:41 gedassan wrote:
Nice read.
I do not agree with him stating that build order is a "coin-flip" thing. Especially after saying "if everyone plays perfectly...". Come on - if you play perfectly, how can build order be a "coin-flip" thing? You would always get the perfect build order for the situation...
So either it is not possible to play perfectly (which means the players skill is never high enough in order to not matter) - which I believe is the case, or build order is actually a skill, and it is not static. You have to scout, see what the opponent is building and adapt, and defy his important tech by harassment. How is that not skill?
One thing I am worried about is that the units in SC2 cross distances so fast, it almost makes it possible to roll a huge "ball" across the map and get everywhere in time. That surely decreases depth and need for multitasking.
Come on - I'm sure you're a smart enough guy to know that with 'playing perfectly' he meant 'executing everything as well as possible within the situation the players are in' (having the right decision making on the information they get from their opponents by scouting and having a really clean macro/micro).
You start a build order which you think will do great vs your opponents race on the particular map you're playing (which is a coin flip; A has and edge over B, B has an edge over C, C has an edge over A). After scouting your opponent you'll have to make a decision on whether to continue your initial strategy - by making a judgment of its effectiveness -, or to adapt your strategy to the information you got from your opponent (which would be the 'playing perfect' part). Obviously if both players make the right judgment, it'll come down to who's initial build will give them an edge (woot! coin flip). The point is that there is not enough room for gaining advantages through, for example, some really smart coordinated attacks or certain moments of super amazingly executed micro, etc.
Anyway, good interview.. well done Chobo! Also, I think I agree with Naz on about all points he made.
|
On March 05 2010 01:19 emperorchampion wrote:
Nice interviews, I just spent like an hour reading them all. Keep em coming.
Yes sir.
|
|
|
I agree with Nazgul. If it wasnt for the Starcraft in Starcraft2, i would cut the game some serious slack anyway. But some things are just so heartbreaking that i probably wont be staying for very long. I really liked WOW right when it started, played it for a good few months intensively and then i never touched it again. But i remember the good things about it.
We're 10 years older. This is not about creating a sport. It's just a game.
Youngsters play that thing up & down anyway, no matter what blizzard does.
|
Agreed on about everything and got sad because of it.
Unless Blizzard changes a whole lot in this game, it'll vanish rather quickly.
|
It's interesting to see how many 'good' BW players who are supposedly smart jump to premature conclusions.
There are things we may notice, but the game needs time to evolve. We can put our concerns on the back burner and bring them up periodically to see how they fit, but to dismiss things outright, saying Blizzard won't change anything (when we're 2 weeks into beta) is ridiculous.
|
United States47024 Posts
Very stark contrast to Day[9]'s optimism about the game.
I'm leaning more toward Day[9]'s view, but I can see where Nazgul is coming from.
The one quote that stands out to me is this:
“I thought that company was Blizzard,” says Nazgul. “They have built a reputation of delivering highly competitive, balanced games that last forever and that you can play for the next 10 years after you buy it. These last few years, they seem to go with the general mood on a lot of things instead of choosing their own path.
No, no they haven't. They did it once. It was a fluke. They haven't gotten better or worse as developers over the last 12 years, it's just that they got really lucky 12 years ago. Competitive gaming wasn't even big enough to be a consideration for a developer in 1998.
Also, I said this in another thread, but I'm pretty sure the "improved AI" has very little actually to do with the AI (as target acquisition isn't THAT different from SC1), but more to do with the smaller collision size--things just bump into each other less, so they seem to move more fluidly when attacking into something. The term "auto-surround" is kind of misleading, seeing as they're not trying harder to surround than SC1 units--they're just better at it because they won't bump into the ass of the unit in front of them. Ironically, I think the current way that's handled is a product of the competitive community complaining that the existing pathing didn't allow for muta stacking several builds ago.
This should mean though, that if they can up collision sizes to a level that improves visibility for the spectator, that they should kill 2 birds with one stone.
On March 05 2010 00:56 Teejing wrote:
Maybe there should be an option to disable mbs/automine and inlimited unitselection. Or just disavle those for plat and/or proleague.
Also i am quite sad that sc2 tries to please everyone, because there are many games for casual players, but not for hardcore gamers.
Did you even read the article? Those issues don't even come up, and given that, by some accounts, the macro mechanics are MORE mechanically demanding than the SC1 interface, those issues have effectively been out of the discussion for months.
|
On March 05 2010 05:37 0neder wrote:
It's interesting to see how many 'good' BW players who are supposedly smart jump to premature conclusions.
There are things we may notice, but the game needs time to evolve. We can put our concerns on the back burner and bring them up periodically to see how they fit, but to dismiss things outright, saying Blizzard won't change anything (when we're 2 weeks into beta) is ridiculous.
Well when people talk about hard vs soft counters as if that is something embedded in the DNA of the game, then they are being premature, I think.
When they talk about the effects of improved pathing AI and interface, I don't think they are necessarily being premature.
When it really comes down to it, a large part of being "pro" at SC/BW is being able to wrestle with terrible pathing, a mediocre interface, and fairly rampant "glitches" like muta stacking. Taking away these aspects improve the game experience for 95% of the population, but they also narrow the gap in skill between the most dedicated pros and the average to above average players.
This is a normal outcome for improved technology. When printing presses were invented, the gap between the common man and the highly educated narrows. The gap between what I know (or can find out on my own) and what my doctor knows is narrower today than it was before the internet came along to provide online diagnostic health information.
Better AI and interface makes "pro" player more accessible to the average gamer, but of course it does nothing for pros except to make the game feel more shallow. The only solution (the one that Blizzard has chosen) is to speed up the game, so that the challenge comes from superior reaction and instinct and less from nimble control.
The skill set for SC2 will be similar, but still very different from the skill set for SC/BW, and that is something that people simply have to accept if they are going to enjoy it.
|
great job man. Interview Zatic next. (the guy who mods the SC2 strat forum)
|
United States3824 Posts
I teared up a bit at the beginning there when you were talking about TL
|
On March 05 2010 06:53 cgrinker wrote:I teared up a bit at the beginning there when you were talking about TL
|
Hi chobopeon,
I really enjoyed this interview, please keep up the good work! Thank you to Nazgul for participating and I hope that at least a few people from Blizzard's development team get a chance to read the basic criticisms being put forward.
All beta users: plagiarize Nazgul and post these basic ideas on the beta feedback page! Along with -- of course -- a kind thank you for a very satisfactory game as it stands.
Thanks again guys. ))
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
I disagree with the statement that Blizzard was mostly catering to competitive gamers before SC2. Blizzard were always trying to make their games "easy to learn, difficult to master", and that is exactly how all of their games are, including, as far as I can tell, SC2.
In fact, from the non-hardcore-SC-player point of view, it is the same old SC, only with modern graphics. Some gaming sites already frown at its "lack of innovation" and "ignoring the progress in the genre", which is a good reason to conclude that Blizzard actually tries to please the hardcore public more.
I also disagree that the improved unit pathfinding is the reason that there doesn't seem to be any spectacular micro at the moment. Someone who doesn't play the game and only spectates will never realize how difficult it is to make those stupid dragoons go up the ramp all at once, or make the zerglings attack something instead of bumping into each other, because they never tried that. And unless you try that, that seems just how it is supposed to be.
But everyone can "wow" at the marine vs lurker micro or hydra dodging storms or mutalisk harass, and none of this involves overcoming buggy AI.
|
On March 05 2010 05:50 Wintermute wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 05:37 0neder wrote:
It's interesting to see how many 'good' BW players who are supposedly smart jump to premature conclusions.
There are things we may notice, but the game needs time to evolve. We can put our concerns on the back burner and bring them up periodically to see how they fit, but to dismiss things outright, saying Blizzard won't change anything (when we're 2 weeks into beta) is ridiculous. Well when people talk about hard vs soft counters as if that is something embedded in the DNA of the game, then they are being premature, I think. When they talk about the effects of improved pathing AI and interface, I don't think they are necessarily being premature. When it really comes down to it, a large part of being "pro" at SC/BW is being able to wrestle with terrible pathing, a mediocre interface, and fairly rampant "glitches" like muta stacking. Taking away these aspects improve the game experience for 95% of the population, but they also narrow the gap in skill between the most dedicated pros and the average to above average players. This is a normal outcome for improved technology. When printing presses were invented, the gap between the common man and the highly educated narrows. The gap between what I know (or can find out on my own) and what my doctor knows is narrower today than it was before the internet came along to provide online diagnostic health information. Better AI and interface makes "pro" player more accessible to the average gamer, but of course it does nothing for pros except to make the game feel more shallow. The only solution (the one that Blizzard has chosen) is to speed up the game, so that the challenge comes from superior reaction and instinct and less from nimble control. The skill set for SC2 will be similar, but still very different from the skill set for SC/BW, and that is something that people simply have to accept if they are going to enjoy it.
Please guys, listen to this man.
And if I had to add something, which I do, because he left it out, it's that that "closeness" that appears to be there between the pros and mediocre isn't as close as everyone seems to think. Sure, the skill bands may be smaller overall, but the guy that is a level above you in skill is STILL a level above you. He still wins.
The difference in IQ(let's pretend everyone believes in this test) between me and an armadillo is vast. Even if you guys think I'm a moron, the difference is indisputably large. Me vs Armadillo = I win. Now, the difference between me and say, Einstein(let's pretend he's still alive) compared to the difference between me and an armadillo is a whole terribly lot smaller. In fact, the difference is miniscule in comparison.
But what happens when it's Me vs Einstein? Simple. He wins.
And in actuality, to people that are very learned there is a big difference between my IQ level and Einstein's IQ level. Their vision is so much more acute that they see a large difference between what my brain can handle and his can.
I think we all need to get a little better at, and more familiar with, the game before our overly eager anticipatory anxiety of the end-all game is sprewed forth, even passionately, in the wrong direction.
|
On March 04 2010 22:46 Nev3rDie wrote:
Here's a spelling mistake you might want to fix.
"It’s likely the A-team Koreans are continuing to play StarCraft 1 as that’s what they are goot at and receive high salaries for. "
All in all, I definitely agree with what Liquid'Nazgul says about starcraft 2 with they way things are looking like right now. I really doubt Blizzard will fix this. Or maybe some mods to make the game harder can like become the standard, than the original game itself. That's the only solution I see to the current problem, is to take the solution into our own hands and mod sc2 to make it harder.
I hadn't thought about it before but you know what? The possibility of mods is huge given how much freedom and support Blizzard is promising in this area. A pro-mode may not be impossible if problems persist.
|
Perhaps features like auto-surround and stuff can be like auto-aim in FPS's, an optional setting. Although this won't fix the problem of the abundance of units which completely own other specific units.
|
I am starting to think it is people's ego saying the skill ceiling is too low. Seems like because it is a new game and they are not familiar with proper builds like they were in SC 1 they are losing to lesser players and saying the game is too easy because they are frustrated at their loss. I could be wrong but this seems like it is what is going on. I think BW players have in the long run a better chance than WC III players at being the best but it seems like BW players are so cocky and expect to already be super good at the game just because they played BW. It is a new game and ALOT is different. That is why you are losing.
Anyway great interview. I look forward to seeing the final product (SC 2) on launch day.
|
The weird thing is, that people all over the internet are coming with so many conclusions, like position play is gone and THAT is the reason sc2 is worse. Micro is gone, and that is the reason the game is worse. Macroing is really easy and that is the reason that sc2 is worse.
OK i will take any game for example, but every game that is new looks crap at the start. The reason is simple, people don't know anything yet about skills, but they are talking about it like they have played it over years.
How do you know there is no micro? A lot of micro tricks still need to be invented, think about splitting up units and whatever, i still see people suicide MnM into banelings. And there is still so much to discover. Phoenix can be used tons more effectively, and I can continue like this. Because there are many micro tricks you will get from experience.
How do you know that macro is less? I mean how many people play the game the same like bw? people need to learn how to use apm more effectivly now things like the 12 units box selection is gone. You can now use that lost apm in controlling more groups at the same time. The mule/queen/boost thing need to be used more effictively. And still so many things to discover, what will replace your old macro skills. OK the start of a game is qua macro easier, but it doesn't change a lot in the outcome of the game.
Is position play that much needed? how can you complain about position play I mean yes it is a commen thing in sc1, but don't you think we get things in return? No people in sc2 can't just sit in there base and wait until they have enough units. Drops, banelings and mothership for instance forces players to put presure on the enemy, and people forgot how fast minerals deplete.
And believe me just because some things are more simple it doesn't mean that there is no way of differ yourself from the rest.
OK don't take this to serious but it is a small argument. In Ra3 the noobiest game there is, is still a common top10. Players who practice a lot and are talented are still in the top there. How? Because it is not always the big difference the makes the game, but also small differences. And because micro is easier, you still require a little bit better micro than the enemy to win.
(sorry for my bad grammer i am dutch)
|
I agree 100%. Starcraft requires micro to be difficult for it to be entertaining. The way the game is looking now, competitive play is going to to be a copycat fest. But wait, isn't that how sc:bw turned out? Yes. The crucial difference, though, is that only the best pros can execute flawlessly. SC2 is going to end up a low skill ceiling game (compared to broodwar) because nothing in the game is physically difficult to execute.
|
How do you know there is no micro? A lot of micro tricks still need to be invented, think about splitting up units and whatever, i still see people suicide MnM into banelings. And there is still so much to discover. Phoenix can be used tons more effectively, and I can continue like this. Because there are many micro tricks you will get from experience.
I agree, in almost all replays I've watched player 1 sends his supergroup into player 2's supergroup and they have the unit lvl AI duke it out(and this is at platinum level). As the players get more experienced I'm sure that they will all realize that his is infact a pretty stupid way to handle things and start splitting their army up and we'll see much more micro.
How do you know that macro is less? I mean how many people play the game the same like bw? people need to learn how to use apm more effectivly now things like the 12 units box selection is gone. You can now use that lost apm in controlling more groups at the same time. The mule/queen/boost thing need to be used more effictively. And still so many things to discover, what will replace your old macro skills. OK the start of a game is qua macro easier, but it doesn't change a lot in the outcome of the game.
Ye, watching replays the top players struggle a lot at using the MULE properly, there's definitely a lot of room for improvement.
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 05 2010 09:23 lu_cid wrote:
SC2 is going to end up a low skill ceiling game (compared to broodwar) because nothing in the game is physically difficult to execute.
I'm actually laughing at this right now. You know why? Because a couple threads over, there's a thread about how bad the Hellion is. Why do people think it's bad? Because they can't micro it. Yet, CowGoMoo, arguably the best player in beta right now, consistently opens with Hellions in TvZ. And you know what? He does some pretty nice micro with them. And he's the only one doing it. You know what that tells me? That microing Hellions is hard.
|
And you know what? He does some pretty nice micro with them. And he's the only one doing it. You know what that tells me? That microing Hellions is hard.
Actually, from watching his replays it seems the trick is to not micro them. If you try to micro them like they're vultures you'll fail miserably because their fire animation is too long. What CowGoMoo does is that is utilize the fact that they fire in a straight line, so he just gives his Helions a move order to walk to the side of the enemy army, they all fire a barrage and the entire enemy army goes up in flames, so they're kinda like the Terran Colossus.
The fact that people other then him are unable to perform this extremely simple move is to me baffling.
|
On March 05 2010 09:08 Dr.Frost wrote:
I am starting to think it is people's ego saying the skill ceiling is too low. Seems like because it is a new game and they are not familiar with proper builds like they were in SC 1 they are losing to lesser players and saying the game is too easy because they are frustrated at their loss. I could be wrong but this seems like it is what is going on. I think BW players have in the long run a better chance than WC III players at being the best but it seems like BW players are so cocky and expect to already be super good at the game just because they played BW. It is a new game and ALOT is different. That is why you are losing.
Anyway great interview. I look forward to seeing the final product (SC 2) on launch day.
Nazgul and Inka and others of this opinion are doing pretty well. And people holding the opposite opinion are doing pretty well, too - eg Drone. I don't that you can chalk either side up to ego. I can't comment either way but both sides seem to have valid points! We'll see.
Anyway, thanks for reading
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 05 2010 09:33 Zironic wrote:
Actually, from watching his replays it seems the trick is to not micro them. If you try to micro them like they're vultures you'll fail miserably because their fire animation is too long. What CowGoMoo does is that is utilize the fact that they fire in a straight line, so he just gives his Helions a move order to walk to the side of the enemy army, they all fire a barrage and the entire enemy army goes up in flames, so they're kinda like the Terran Colossus.
Big surprise, they're not vultures. I'll bet you'd fail pretty hard if you tried to micro Dragoons like vultures too. Does that mean you can't micro Dragoons? Hardly.
|
Big surprise, they're not vultures. I'll bet you'd fail pretty hard if you tried to micro Dragoons like vultures too. Does that mean you can't micro Dragoons? Hardly.
Indeed, that's the point. A lot of people seem to think that they're a shitty replacement for Vultures, when infact they're more mobile firebats.
|
United States996 Posts
|
I think nazgul is right. I said this myself to my buddy just after watching a couple streams. If blizzard takes away the edges that you can grab(micro) it will just turn into a game of build orders. Which means more luck will be involved. It is pretty obvious.
there were so many games of starcraft I was able to easily come back and win vs worse opponents because I outmicro'd them. so far it looks like this won't be the case in sc2. and as a result of this not only will there be more luck involved but there will be fewer viable build orders because there is less you can pull off with micro.
|
I think this just raises questions.
Did anyone at TL or any other site [ when they visited Blizzard or the game developers ] actually bring up the points that Nazgul did? Or did everyone not ask simply to avoid having awkward straightforward questions. I guess it would be hard for them to respond but I wonder what Morhaime/Browder etc would say if you said, "Look we know the financial aspect is part of the game, and you are making a huge deal about publicly supporting the competitive bw community and trying to bring in progamers etc...where do you draw the line?"
|
On March 05 2010 05:50 Wintermute wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 05:37 0neder wrote:
It's interesting to see how many 'good' BW players who are supposedly smart jump to premature conclusions.
There are things we may notice, but the game needs time to evolve. We can put our concerns on the back burner and bring them up periodically to see how they fit, but to dismiss things outright, saying Blizzard won't change anything (when we're 2 weeks into beta) is ridiculous. Well when people talk about hard vs soft counters as if that is something embedded in the DNA of the game, then they are being premature, I think. When they talk about the effects of improved pathing AI and interface, I don't think they are necessarily being premature. When it really comes down to it, a large part of being "pro" at SC/BW is being able to wrestle with terrible pathing, a mediocre interface, and fairly rampant "glitches" like muta stacking. Taking away these aspects improve the game experience for 95% of the population, but they also narrow the gap in skill between the most dedicated pros and the average to above average players. This is a normal outcome for improved technology. When printing presses were invented, the gap between the common man and the highly educated narrows. The gap between what I know (or can find out on my own) and what my doctor knows is narrower today than it was before the internet came along to provide online diagnostic health information. Better AI and interface makes "pro" player more accessible to the average gamer, but of course it does nothing for pros except to make the game feel more shallow. The only solution (the one that Blizzard has chosen) is to speed up the game, so that the challenge comes from superior reaction and instinct and less from nimble control. The skill set for SC2 will be similar, but still very different from the skill set for SC/BW, and that is something that people simply have to accept if they are going to enjoy it.
goood post.
you name the basic issue true sc:bw fans have with the new game. i like the analogy with printing presses that enabled the common man (every noob) to execute tasks which had been exclusive for the highly educated (pros) before.
|
Suppose one player would build an army of stalkers while another player builds an equally strong army of roaches. So if the AI would let them fight, it would result in a draw.
Now imagine the player micros his stalkers creatively, uses the terrain to blink, sets chokes, focuses fire and so on, while the zerg player uses burrow, puts wounded troops out of fire to regenerate, uses some form of creep advantage and so on. There are probably lots of more tricks one could use that I don't think of or which are not yet discovered by the pros.
Isn't that "watchable"? I'm sure that the player with the better micro will win this fight. And there are usually more fights in a match and all sorts of unit combinations. Nobody knows how many micro tricks are yet to be discovered and new ones introduced through patches or the next expansions.
|
let's say there is a scale which goes up to the difficulty of 100
(example for micro, fictive numbers)
SC:BW:
Micro: 50
Difficulty through "manual" AI: 50
Difficulty / required skill to control game sufficiently: 100
______
SCII:
Micro: 50 (minus steps done by AI = ~40?)
Difficulty through "automatic" AI: 25
Difficulty / required skill to control game sufficiently: 75 (65?)
OVERALL it's an easier/simplified game, even if you micro some of your units (if need be).
This example shall just illustrate what my line of thought is. SC:BW also HAD all those things you had to do with your units to micro them perfectly PLUS the harder level because of lacking "auto AI".
That micro wasn't needed at all in SCII is not of the discussion, just that it's less important / needed.
|
ghardo your post is a bit weird. How can you compare two things so easily?
|
i dunno, i just can
and on a more serious note: this concept isn't thought through 100%. to regard AI and micro that fights versus interface mechanics separately and then count it together to one factor "difficulty" is just a way of looking at things.
the only thing it should do was illustrate that it's of course not forbidden to apply micro in SCII, just that it's questionable if the AI isn't too intelligent so that it's not as effective as in SC:BW. "the game plays for you".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.mymym.com/gfx/testie6.jpg)
