EPTOh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NegativeSC
35 Posts
| ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
I'm saying the only reason people are agreeing with LaLush is because of his name factor and that it's negative against the sequel. This literally happens with every single anticipated sequel. It can never live up to your dreams. | ||
|
Tdelamay
Canada548 Posts
If Jaedong didn't transfer over to SC2, it would take away nothing. The players we've seen play so far are a lot of fun to watch. I doubt that having more APM can make the game more exciting. | ||
|
richard_keats
United States54 Posts
On April 27 2010 10:23 ComradeDover wrote: The thought process behind these articles is obvious. It isn't Find a flaw -> make a logical argument -> Blame Blizzard It's Blame Blizzard -> Look for flaws -> Make a logical argument so your article isn't just a hate post It's the same thing over and over and over and over again. Whether it's MBS or micro or maps or replays or chat channels or any one of the thousand other innane things, people are just looking for excuses to shit on Blizzard, which is really disapointing considering this is the website dedicated to one of Blizzard's creations. I'm surprised I'm the only one who's sick of this shit at this point. Either way, flaws are found and logical arguments are created regardless of the intent of the post. I am also curious what people should criticize if not Blizzard when they find that the game is not of the quality that they had expected. Certainly, players should try to adapt and innovate: yet I doubt even you would deny the presence of gaping flaws in the game. Is it not a surprise to you that posters are upset when a company that has continually delivered high-quality products does not satisfy their expectations, especially with such a highly anticipated game that is the sequel to an internationally played RTS? I will not disagree that some of the attacks on Blizzard do go overboard. I am also irritated that some posters have decided to personally attack members of the development team, which I feel is not the correct action to take. However, at the same time, it is important to understand the passion people have for Starcraft, which is what surely fuels their anger. I also argue that people do not look for excuses--if they have valid criticism, then their points are obviously valid! If their ideas are without value, then surely the community will recognize thus--and if consensus is not quickly reached, the ensuing discussion can only enrich the knowledge of the posters involved. I, personally, would rather look critically at every aspect of the game partially because I truly do have such high expectations and I respect Blizzard for their ability to deliver a quality product because as a future player I want the game to be as good as possible! To me, this is a far better alternative than simply trusting that Blizzard is spot-on and not even bothering to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of changes. On April 27 2010 10:23 ComradeDover wrote: Since you're a new poster, I'll forgive you for not recognizing this style of article, then. If you had been reading this forum more closely and for a longer period of time, you would understand where I'm coming from. I am a new poster, but I am not necessarily new to the forums. Registration dates do a poor job of indicating how long a poster has read forum threads. I do see where you're coming from and I honestly and genuinely admire your dedication to Blizzard. I believe that such loyal sentiments are truly admirable. At the same time, in pursuit of a better game, I believe that one must not ignore a point irrelevant of how emotionally it was presented. I prefer to disregard the infused emotion and approach the proposal, criticism, or idea in an objective manner. Yes, the same points are repeated often. But does our passion not betray our devotion? I argue that people do not seek reasons to degrade Blizzard--rather, people simply want a better game. I cannot reasonably believe that there are people who actively despise Blizzard and seek reasons to prove the inferiority of its games, and in this fashion I believe you misrepresent those you criticize. On April 27 2010 10:23 ComradeDover wrote: I respectfully disagree with your observation. Pointing out ad hominem and emotionally laden phrases is not in itself ad hominem nor nessessarily emotional laden. I feel as though there were more tactful and mature ways to do so, at the very least. The tone of your post was, to me, fairly condescending. On April 27 2010 10:23 ComradeDover wrote: And you're welcome to feel any way you wish to feel, in the same way the OP is free to feel that Blizzard is ruining his life because vultures don't dance anymore. But if you can boil down the entirity of my posts in this thread into a one-sentence statement, it would be that Feelings don't equate truth. If you need a hard evidence example, just take a look at this thread. The OP feels something is wrong because he doesn't feel that there is a moving shot mechanic in the game. Plexa shows us that there is, in fact, moving shot in the game. Regardless of how strongly the OP feels his beliefs to be true, feelings don't equate truth. To make an article to heavily laden with feelings is to write an article that risks being bereft of truth. And is TeamLiquid, as a community of both veterans and neophytes, the worse off for having this thread? I cannot disagree that "feelings do not equate truth", of course. However, the spirited discussion that ensued from this thread indubitably served to enrich its participants and promote a greater understanding of Starcraft's mechanics. Plexa himself attested to the difficulty of the execution of a moving shot in Starcraft II. It is not at all feasible and has little purpose; Plexa himself stated that he was in agreement with LaLush's points. Thus I would disagree that the purpose of this thread is entirely invalidated by Plexa's discovery of a partially functional moving shot in Starcraft II. To conclude, I simply wish to also point out that the OP does not solely discuss the absence of the moving shot--it raises a multitude of intriguing points about the design of the game as well. | ||
|
Nao
Poland166 Posts
Before the beta I was more interested in Korean pro scene for SC:BW and didn't really play competetive. Right now my playtime in SC2B is 3 or 4 times bigger than BW (was D+ T and now i'm high gold/low plat T), and just because of this article i dusted of my SC folder, and boy it was suprise, it is soo much more fun microing units in BW. I think moving shot is not the only problem, the whole clunkiness of units combined with somewhat cramped terrian was really rewarding positioning, and pre battle planning in BW. It made it also possible to attack harras or delay more sizable opposing force. It all seems to be gone from beta, all what's left for ground units is kiting ranged units, and constantly unclumping them so your force can achive good arc faster (and i'm already using 3-4 ctrl groups for forces). And i think Terran has the best end of the deal here having Reapers, Vikings (vs BC), Banshees and stimmed marauders wich have good micro possibilities. Something has to be done, and i think shortening animation cooldown before (argh i hate helion micro) and after the attack is good place to start. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On April 27 2010 11:01 ploy wrote: Was thinking the same thing... so many posts like this mention how stupid/bad having bonus dmg/armor system in the game is...... I don't think it's a bad system. Infact I think it's a better system than the old one. I was merely pointing out the fact of how remarkable it was by Blizzard to manage to balance a game where every unit had an absolute damage value, scaled by a "one size fits all" damage reduction system. The damage system in SC was percentage based. I find that remarkable. And I find that to strengthen my point that moving shot helped balance Starcraft (and that it might also, if implemented, help balance SC2). Does that make sense? | ||
|
BladeRunner
United States407 Posts
On April 27 2010 10:59 ComradeDover wrote: Did they? I haven't heard that before. Pretty sure that was a different unit from the Hellion. I couldn't find the quote so you may be right, I thought they did say that thought but I could be wrong. You're right it wasn't the hellion, but the point still stands; the technology is there to do moving shots: | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 27 2010 11:07 diehilde wrote: The difference is, Lalush posted extensive and detailed reasoning for his opinion while Nony posted his opinion but no reasoning for it at all. If you read it again, all he posted is that he disagrees on most points, but agrees on one point. The reasoning if you wanna say so is "that the conclusions and ideas surrounding this core point are pretty bad" You basically took all your own reasoning and opinion and projected it into a simple "are pretty bad" by a more respected poster. The only thing that is extensive and detailed in LaLush's post is his general incoherence. He talks in detail about all sorts of mechanical differences between SC1 and SC2, and he clearly makes the point that SC1 is better, but he fails to explain why it really matters beyond just personal preference. Don't confuse verbosity for quality writing. | ||
rotinegg
United States1719 Posts
On April 27 2010 11:14 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think it's a bad system. Infact I think it's a better system than the old one. I was merely pointing out the fact of how remarkable it was by Blizzard to manage to balance a game where every unit had an absolute damage value, scaled by a "one size fits all" damage reduction system. The damage system in SC was percentage based. I find that remarkable. And I find that to strengthen my point that moving shot helped balance Starcraft (and that it might also, if implemented, help balance SC2). Does that make sense? much better than your OP, your point is crystal clear without insulting anyone in particular. | ||
|
SagaZ
France3460 Posts
With this current mecanic, the moving shot can't really be implemented without turning sc2 into a massaireachandeverygame type of game imo. Air units seems fine as they are, what makes me cringe is the auto moving shot some ground units seem to have... | ||
|
checo
Mexico1364 Posts
Awsome read thx for this | ||
|
fulmetljaket
482 Posts
taking a break. its been a long 12 years. sincerely, micro | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
| ||
|
Cu(oCo)
Italy358 Posts
kudos to you | ||
|
ComradeDover
Bulgaria758 Posts
On April 27 2010 11:09 PanzerDragoon wrote: I'm saying the only reason people are agreeing with LaLush is because of his name factor and that it's negative against the sequel. This literally happens with every single anticipated sequel. It can never live up to your dreams. I didn't know LaLush was that famous to be honest. :S | ||
|
iamho
United States3345 Posts
| ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
On April 27 2010 11:09 Tdelamay wrote: I find it irritating that more APM is linked to better gameplay and entertainment. The game is plenty of fun to watch and play, should we reconsider our stance toward the validity of these sort of micro in the game? It might be some misguided attitude we have toward our game. If Jaedong didn't transfer over to SC2, it would take away nothing. The players we've seen play so far are a lot of fun to watch. I doubt that having more APM can make the game more exciting. as im a pretty low apm player myself it hurts me to say this but u are incredibly wrong. It would take away a huge deal if JD didnt switch over. And of cus more APM can make a game more exciting if the skill ceiling is high enough. Its like saying players with more speed or stamina dont make a soccer game more exciting. If somebody like JD with a very high effective APM and insane multitasking plays the game he can perform shit like managing creep tumors, macro, micro and dropping several expos at the same time. Would that make the game more exciting? Fuck yeah. Nobody wants the stuff that you see the top players do now to require 400 APM for the same result. But fact of the matter is that the current top players arent on the level of a player like JD. Given JD has the same level of strategic understanding/decision making but has 150 more effective APM and multitasks twice as fast - why shouldnt he be able to pull off insane moves his opponents cant and why on earth shouldnt the game get more exciting as a result of the higher level of play?? The limits of a game should always lie within the player and not within the game imo. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On April 27 2010 10:48 monadeniafidelis wrote: Restrictions breed creativity. The OP (except when it meanders) does a good job of describing the difference between 'moving' and 'gliding' shot, and the relative prevalence of these attack types between BW and SC2. However, the post is predicated upon an assumption that comes up a lot in these types of discussions. While this assumption seems reasonable, I am not convinced that it accurately represents the full picture of things. That assumption is this: putting 'more' control of the units in the hands of players makes for a better and more skilled game. Indeed, the more 'perfectly' one is able to control a unit, the more advantage a skilled player is going to have controlling these units, compared to a less skilled player. All else being equal, increasing opportunity for meaningful application of skill to affect the game is very important. I would argue, though, that not all else is equal; in particular, a player with perfect control over his units has fewer interesting strategic decisions to make compared to a player without perfect control over his units. I will try to use the Mutalisk from BW as an example, because it was perhaps the best example of having perfect control over 11 units at once. But with perfect mechanics, one never needed to worry about giving the mutalisks any particular order. It didn't matter what the opponent was doing, or would do in response; the mutalisks could turn away instantly, after which they could go back in for another shot. There does not necessarily need to be any further decision making beyond "is it safe to give this order right now". The decision tree is not deep. The OP even brings up this very issue: With gliding shot, one has to consider all the ways in which the opponent can respond while your units are unresponsive during their attack animation. To me, needing this decision creates far more interesting gameplay. Of course, at the same time, this is restricting the set of possibilities of what you can do with your units. It's a trade off, and ultimately I think it's a good one. I think SC2 still has a lot of opportunities for advantageous unit control. Having too little control is obviously detrimental to creating a deep game, but I hope I've been able to argue that perfect control is also detrimental in its own way. Above all, though, I hope this serves to show that both BW and SC2 are incredibly complex and chaotic (in the technical sense of the term) and that there are not necessarily any linear or even monotonic relations between aspects of gameplay (such as 'perfect' unit control) and various measures of final game quality. I hope I've made myself sufficiently clear. P.S. "Restrictions breed creativity", for those who are wondering, is a favourite phrase of Mark Rosewater, designer for Magic: The Gathering. This is the best post IMO. It brings up an essential point that almost no one considers, which is the strategic downside of perfect control. | ||
|
Enfold
United States110 Posts
| ||
|
Koffiegast
Netherlands346 Posts
| ||
| ||
