EPTOh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DaEm0niCuS
United States60 Posts
| ||
|
mOnion
United States5653 Posts
On April 27 2010 13:03 DaEm0niCuS wrote: The sick part is all they had to do was get a few sc veterans like yourself to help them and the game would have turned out much better. Blizzard/newbs just don't realize what makes sc1 a good game, took them 5 years and all they had to do was get 5-10 sc vets to explain it to them, which they probably could have done in a day, lol. exactly >_< can you imagine how good this game would be if Mondragon was there going "no no, that sux" | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11044 Posts
Wish I could say something more constructive right now but all I can say is awesome work. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On April 27 2010 12:58 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Why the fuck AREN"T we asking for scbw with better graphics? why on earth would we want to get rid of broodwar micro and replace it with mundane tasks like chronoboosting/muleing. /facepalm Chronoboost/MULE is a replacement for SBS and manual mining. And if you want to argue that CB/MULEs are more mundane than SBS and manual mining well sir ill take that fight >  | ||
|
_hate
Japan112 Posts
On April 27 2010 12:44 mOnion wrote: you, like most other posters, seem to want to ignore a perfect game and act like it never existed. i was merely stating an example. i play toss in both games and couldnt care less about muta micro. "I only saw so far because I stood on the shoulders of giants" eh? let's build on the past. lol yeah i think many of these players hardly played/watched starcraft broodwar to the point of enjoyment sad reality | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
EDIT: Turns out that this isn't actually really part of your argument at all. Who knew? | ||
|
ymirheim
Sweden300 Posts
On April 27 2010 12:25 tomatriedes wrote: This is team liquid. People here like BW a lot precisely because it was different from other RTS games. This 'small aspect of the game' was actually a huge factor in what made BW such an exciting game to play and watch. Imagine Jaedong without the muta control or Boxer without Marine-medic control. But the point remains that there was no Jaedong and there was no muta control in starcraft beta. people need to bloody chill. | ||
|
DaEm0niCuS
United States60 Posts
I think work/effort just means something in itself. Adding a bunch of factors that reduces it takes something away from the game. | ||
|
Tin_Foil
United States243 Posts
My main problem with the OP's point is that his analysis of Move/shoot being more difficult is complete wrong. Its not an engine issue. It's attack animations, or attack times, or whatever you want to call it. The corsair had an instant attack, this allowed it to continue moving. The phoenix has a slow attack, this makes it not able to move/shot as well. The banshee has a much faster attack, and magically, it can move/shot much better. Its slowish move speed is the main thing slowing it down. Therefore, if you want more micro for Phoenix then crusade for a reduced attack time, don't moan about SC2 failing... 1st-- SC:BW had a perfect engine?? That whole rant was so much BS... What made micro in SC"BW so hard was the crappy, outdated engine...It did make the game enjoyable to watch, so it worked out, but personally I enjoy being able to control my units in SC2, and find the engine to be great, with multitudes of micro opportunities... 2nd-- Corsairs vs Phoenix -- Again... SOO much BS... Corsairs are better vs muta because of splash...the move attack does help, sure, but splash is the important part. A corsair doesn't do 5 damage like you claim, against stacked mutas it does much, much more since it hits all, making it excellent against stacked mutas. Thats why the sairs did so much better...Also. Its not the engine that makes the phoenix not move shoot as well, its a longer attack time, if you were to give the phoenix an instant attack, I'll bet move-shoot would appear instantly. So you don't need to go off on ridiculous tangents about engines...You just should have said that the phoenix should have an instant attack, allowing it to move shoot. Banshee's and vikings move shoot very well, and I've seen them microed poorly and die, or well and do mass damage in many games. 3rd-- The whole anti-Corruptor thing was truly, truly ridiculous!!! Are you kidding me!! You basically said, "I DON'T LIKE THIS UNIT CHANGE IT NOW!" Just because you don't realize that stopping building from functioning is useful doesn't mean the unit should be removed... Corrupt can be used to shut down defenses(ie. limited disruption web), which is good, but yah, not just the coolest thing, but you know what is cool---Denying your enemy from making units...Just because people aren't using it now does not mean its useless. 4th-- There is plenty of worker micro, and I've yet to see a game where someone was able to permanently stop an expo, the zerg is able to micro well enough to drop it(sometimes delayed) every time, but if they could, why don't you see that as,"Oh wow, with a some mirco I can stop expo's!" Isn't that an nice micro opportunity? I've won or lost numerous games from poor or good probe micro and abusing mining pathing. I probe drilled a toss just today to break a ramp for a zealot rush and then cornered and mostly killed his stalkers, much better than I could have done with SC:BW probes. 5th- I've seen awesome, and entertaining hellion micro. Its just not vulture micro. You have to be more careful about when you take a shot, and work better angled shots, but the results can be devastating. 6th- Valks are bad against scourge because they have gradual damage. This gives time for the scourge to close. Before you have enough corsairs to one shot scourge they are equally bad against scourge despite move-shot. Think Julyzerg vs Best in the OSL when Julyzerg utterly denied Best air control. That whole point was nonsense. 7th- "You can never engage a superior force with a weaker one" This is just false false false false. I've only had the beta for about 5 days now and am no where near the best(20ish plat), and yet I've played countless games where this was simply not true. Not to mention all the steams I've seen this disproven in. I beat a terran today who snuck in a gold expo I never scouted, then Maurader/ghost balled me. And I won with a considerably smaller Chargelot, sentry, stalker army. Even though he surprised me initially and hit pretty much every unit with emp, good use of ff, blink and move shooting stalkers + focus fire won me the game. 8th-- OP quotes: "What good would an air unit that dealt 5 damage otherwise do if it became immobilized and impossible to micro after it fired? Let me answer that for us: Absolutely none. And that is the very reason why no air unit with splash damage exists in Starcraft 2" This is such a ridiculous assumption.... If the corsair existed in SC2 I would be surprised if you could not move/shoot just as well as in SC:BW. Did you ever think the Blizz team simply decided to go a different way than corairs?? Maybe they wanted mutas to be more viable so removed splash from air? 9th-- Just about everyone, even you, has realized all the mbs and unit selection overreaction proved to be just that, an overreaction. I'm thinking this "micro is dead" BS will go the same way... And 10th- This wasn't a main point, but what the hell does a players skill have to do with his intelligence, or ability to analyze the game? This was more a general attitude I noticed from the OP(not to mention a good deal of TeamLiquiders in general...) than a specific point, but its a ridiculous, arrogant attitude that I think need to go away. I was never all that great at SC:BW(C rating about). I found out about the pro-scene too late to feel I could catch up fully, but I followed avidly, and feel that while many of you could easily beat me, I can make just as good a post as a better player... Now I'm a Plat player in the Beta, so I guess my arguments should magically carry more weight, no matter if they're retarded or not... And lastly-- I've only had the beta a short while, but I find the engine to be soo much beter than SC:BW's. I find I have much better control. I generally am highly impressed with the game. It's far from perfect yet, but I think its doing great. And the numbers reported of very balanced win rates for races, plus the already impressive levels of competition and creativity shown in the numerous tournaments have me highly hopeful. PS: Sorry for the rant....But yah.....And did it ever occur to you that your friend may have beaten Nony, cause they weren't playing SC:Bw.... Maybe Nony isn't as good, or as knowledgeable about SC2 yet as he was about SC:BW? It's a related game...But a new game... Sorry if there was bad grammar in parts, was typing fast, not sure I said it all perfect. EDIT: I Forgot!! This quote for the OP : "Starcraft had a one size fits all damage system. Now how the hell did Blizzard balance it despite not being able to give units arbitrary bonus damage values towards specific armor types?" Do you realize that SC:BW could have the almost same system as SC2 if you reversed it(you have to add "medium".... Dragoons-- 10 + 10 to armored and +5 to light. Vultures-- 5 + 5 to medium + 15 to armored... and so on.. How do you not realize this. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On April 27 2010 12:49 UnderDarkLord wrote: First of all, sounded a little like a rant, which usually isn't a good thing because it makes cogent points sound unreasonable. Second, while YOU and many of the people who replied to this enjoy a game that utilizes the move-shot micro mechanic, Blizzard is indeed a company that is aiming to sell games, and such a mechanic is not something that encourages less skilled players to join. If they get more sales this way, this is the way they will choose to follow. Unfortunately this is true. However, this will only serve to worsen Starcraft 2's legitimacy as an ESport when compared to Starcraft 1. The only thing that could carry Starcraft 2 as an ESport would be advertising, hype, and funding. That much is certain. (rest of quotes in spoilers) + Show Spoiler + Third, there still is micro in the game, it is just not the micro you are used to. As this game is still recently released, and still in the beta stage, ways to utilize the existing micro to enjoy the game and enhance the skill ceiling are still being discovered and will continue to be discovered for a while. Additionally, the existing micro will be changed as the beta advances and when the full-version is released, and also in patches after the game is released, that also will likely heighten the skill ceiling created by micro. Again, we are looking for the CAPACITY for micro, not specifically the "micro opportunities" themselves. What makes you so sure new micro techniques will be discovered and for a while, at that? On another note, micro does not create a skill ceiling if the CAPACITY for it is not there. New forms of large army control and unit control is not something that will evolve due to the new engine and the way units are designed and function. + Show Spoiler + Fourth, this one is pretty simple, this game is an RTS, not RTT (real-time tactics) or a simulator. If you know the differences, you'll understand why it makes sense your units are not fully able to do anything you want, and even explains smart-cast. You have a plan coming into battle, you know what units you want, what to counter other units with, you have BOs and other plans. Then, you have the tactical element where you give orders to succeed at your strategy. However it is not YOU the player who controls those units in movement and casting, but rather you tell them to do what you want where you want it, and they do it the best they can. So a group of templars decide which of them will storm the spot you want stormed, and the pilots of your phoenixes fly to the spot you want and start killing what you want them to kill. Without you having the need to pick the individual templar, or be able to essentially pilot the phoenixes yourself as you would be able to do in a simulator. Nonsensical. Starcraft 1 is not a simulator, yet you need to command individual casters. Also, you seem to have a strange idea of what micro is. It's the use of unit control to maximize its utility, and it also can refer to using large groups of units and issuing diverse commands in order to gain the upper hand in a battle. For example in PvT, Observers move out front while Zealots target Tanks and soak/drag mines and tank fire while dragoons come in behind to deal with the vultures and deliver the meat of the damage. To counter, Terran could have carefully chosen a particularly advantageous spot to position the tanks and lay mines in a strategic pattern away from the tanks and vultures and build turrets to deal with the observers and keep the vultures in front of the tanks to soak damage and snipe Zealots. All of this control excludes the use of Arbiters to Stasis certain tanks and the use of High Templar dropped from Shuttles to cast Psionic Storm while Zealots run in, and on top of that fails to consider where to engage the Terran army (open area? backed into a wall? flank?) and when to engage the Terran army (Tanks misplaced? Unsieged? Mines not laid yet? Vultures out of position?). And this is only ONE of the many dynamics seen across all the different matchups and is UNIQUE to this match-up; in other words, a PvZ and a PvP fuctions drastically differently from PvT and functions nothing like the other possible match-ups. This is considering only a single matchup for a single race, and there is multitudes of more layers of micro complexity that I have not even begun to scratch at. Does Starcraft 2 really have the capability to produce different dynamics across all different match-ups given the way the engine and the units are designed? These are just some thoughts, not exactly counters, they are different ways of thinking about this game. The people who replied to the OP and said this game doesn't take skill, or similar comments, are simply stating a subjective (and harmful) opinion that as this game does not take the skill they want used, it takes none at all. This game takes skill, it's just a different kind, and people need to understand that too. + Show Spoiler + P.S.-- For anyone not knowing difference between tactics and strategy. Strategy is an overall military effort and plan, like BO's and counters you plan, build for, and use in game. You could even have a strategy in a best out of 5 to win the first game, and the last two, because those maps are your best (for example). While tactics are the direct unit control to adapt to attacks or yourself attack. While the game certainly has broad tactics like retreating at certain times, attacking, specifically moving units or building units, you live and die by your strategy. If you don't know how to counter a build, you're dead, if you don't have an efficient enough BO, you're dead (assuming players of equal skill). So basically, tactics win if you have a hole in your strategy, and strategy can carry a game because it's either out-macroing your opponent, or doing some other plan (like a rush) that they had no strategy to beat, and thus none of their tactics can help. Yes, you have described one of the most basic of basic concepts of Starcraft Brood War. If even that failed to translate into Starcraft 2, Starcraft 2 would have been a complete and utter failure. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 27 2010 12:53 Wretched wrote: Strategical skill is just as valid as mechanical skill. Just because broodwar was more mechanics heavy doesn't mean starcraft 2 has to be the same. There is still just as much potential for skill, but in a different and more exciting way. Now, people will have to play more strategically, rather than mechanically. And at a high level as well. In broodwar, to be a top player you needed to be able to smash the APM and flip out insane moves like a robot to be the best. You had to be clever, but not THAT clever. In starcraft 2, the top players will not need AS MUCH mechanical skill, but will need to be masterminds to win long drawn out macro games. I used to get dissapointed seeing pro broodwar games get turned on their heads just because of some small mechanical based error which could win or lose you the game. For example, mis-microing mutas with one click. In conclusion, i don't think you can call a game 'skill less' just because the set of skills it requires is different from what you expect or desire. And being a top strategist is probably harder than being a top mechanical player, because afterall, all the 'skill' in mechanics is really just something you can practice. If someone is truly dumb, they wont be able to get away with being a robot in starcraft 2. Perhaps more on topic, i really can't see how using super mobile phoenixes to fly around and snipe overlords from under hydras noses is going to make the game any more balanced, or fun. No, strategic skill is shit unless you create a game that is strategically as complex as Chess and Go. Starcraft is not, starcraft possess a glimmer of that skill. | ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On April 27 2010 12:44 insectoceanx wrote: SC1 units were not perfectly controlled. They bugged out all the time. eg goliaths goons or ultra who all get stuck on a ramp. You only had to dance because the units were so retarded otherwise. I like sc2 and im glad its not just sc1 in 3d. Give the game time to evolve. How long was sc1 played before people began dancing mutas? God... I just love people who don't read threads. Anyways, how is SC2 doing better than SC1 in terms of unit diversity? | ||
|
mOnion
United States5653 Posts
| ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On April 27 2010 12:58 iamho wrote: yeah because modern and better games dont have intensive micro. you don't seriously think that blizzard devs hate watching pro-level micro, do you? i posted that because of all the post saying sc2 is not as micro heavy as sc1. which it honestly isnt. its insanely easy to micro in sc2 compared to sc1. and that post u quoted was a explanation to why that is. these tricks and tactics start to fade away as a game series start to grow into the more modern age. this is something that applies to almost all games not just starcraft. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On April 27 2010 12:58 Xenocide_Knight wrote: (And please, don't tell me it's a "strategical decision", once the standard builds are set in a a year or so, what to chronoboost and when to do it won't be a strategical decision, it will be a mathematical proof. It's like saying BW had a strategical decisions like when to put down your 2nd hatch as zerg, 12 hatch or 10 hatch. It's not a decision anymore, 12 hatch is just mathematically superior.) Given a unit that does not have the capability to moving shot (phoenix for example), a player must make a strategical decision about whether to engage or not at any given point of the game when confronted with a group of mutalisks, for example. The phoenix is still perfectly under the player's control in sc2, because the player has full information of what happens when the phoenix is going to engage: it is going to slow down with a slight drift and shoot and be briefly disabled by it's attack. It is not a lack of control, because it's not random, the player enters into that situation with full knowledge of the phoenix's characteristics (including attack and movement animations). Therefore, in considering the decision of whether to engage, the player must consider the immediate reaction of his opponent's units as well as the many possible re-positions an opponent may make during the phoenix's characteristic animation delay to react, and judge the expected value of the result accordingly. This is a much more complicated decision than the engagement decision given a moving shot animation like the Brood War muta and stacking. In this scenario again there is full knowledge of the capabilities of the muta, but the engagement decision now only must consider the immediate reaction of his opponent's units; the opponent's response can barely even occur by the time the mutas are again out of range, so there is no split second analysis of a decision tree, there is only an analysis of what's on the screen. This is what causes the brood war mechanics to be labeled more mechanical and the sc2 mechanics to be more strategical. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 27 2010 13:18 ZapRoffo wrote: Given a unit that does not have the capability to moving shot (phoenix for example), a player must make a strategical decision about whether to engage or not at any given point of the game when confronted with a group of mutalisks, for example. The phoenix is still perfectly under the player's control in sc2, because the player has full information of what happens when the phoenix is going to engage: it is going to slow down with a slight drift and shoot and be briefly disabled by it's attack. It is not a lack of control, because it's not random, the player enters into that situation with full knowledge of the phoenix's characteristics (including attack and movement animations). Therefore, in considering the decision of whether to engage, the player must consider the immediate reaction of his opponent's units as well as the many possible re-positions an opponent may make during the phoenix's characteristic animation delay to react, and judge the expected value of the result accordingly. This is a much more complicated decision than the engagement decision given a moving shot animation like the Brood War muta and stacking. In this scenario again there is full knowledge of the capabilities of the muta, but the engagement decision now only must consider the immediate reaction of his opponent's units; the opponent's response can barely even occur by the time the mutas are again out of range, so there is no split second analysis of a decision tree, there is only an analysis of what's on the screen. This is what causes the brood war mechanics to be labeled more mechanical and the sc2 mechanics to be more strategical. You just defined "tactics". aka micro. | ||
|
DaEm0niCuS
United States60 Posts
| ||
|
mOnion
United States5653 Posts
On April 27 2010 13:21 DaEm0niCuS wrote: Id be suprised if any good players bw B+ or higher on iccup disagree with this. Anyone elses opinion doesn't really mean shit IMO, lol. you know lalush was like B+ himself right? one of the best toss streams to watch back in the day. (4 months ago) | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On April 27 2010 13:21 DaEm0niCuS wrote: Id be suprised if any good players bw B+ or higher on iccup disagree with this. Anyone elses opinion doesn't really mean shit IMO, lol. there was alot of them including nony who disagreed with him. so your opinion doesnt account for much now does it lol. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 27 2010 13:23 Ballistixz wrote: there was alot of them including nony who disagreed with him. so your opinion doesnt account for much now does it lol. Nony agreed with his point, just not his tone or his hyperbole (Micro is DEAD) and all that philophizing crap. Right now, you simply cannot make the argument that "The current state of Micro is fine". No, there are two positions an person can take, its ok, and its going to get better, and ok, its going to stay mere "ok". The argument being presented here is that the current way units move and behave does not give players enough control, the core component of tactical evolution, aka "better". | ||
| ||
