Oh Micro, Where Art Thou? - Page 21

On April 27 2010 14:03 Brad wrote:
This is fun. It's Counter Strike 1.6 > Source all over again. In the end, both games died, it wasn't fun....

On April 27 2010 14:07 ymirheim wrote:

Really?

In SC2, Immortal/Stalker force with sentry support vs marine/marauder with ghost support comes down to how much you practiced your forcefield and kiting micro as well as unit spreading. Me vs White-rA, I probably would kill a few units and loose my entire force to excellent forcefields and good unitspread.

We can already establish that we cannot compare case for case exactly because the units are different but if people are really intent on comparing micro opportunity then we can always cancel out micro situations against each other, so in sc2 we got forcefields which make a HUGE difference depending on how you use them. Well placed forcefields can allow you to take out a larger force with a smaller force, the very definition of micro. So lets just take muta control and forcefields and remove those two from the discussion. Maybe we can go down the line and find that one of the two games have slightly more microable situations but by no means is it just as simple as saying one game has these scenarios and the other doesn't. Just because any numbnut can place sentries or kite with marauders does not mean that everyone can do it equally well, there is bad forcefield micro and there is bad marauder micro and people seem way to willing to just ignore this to further their argument.

On April 27 2010 14:11 Paperscraps wrote:


Seriously!

Why play SC2 if you are in love with SC1 so much. Oh wait you want something new, different, and exciting. SC2 is new, different, and exciting. Let it come into its own or just play BW. Seems like a simple answer to me.

P.S. I love CS 1.6(SC:BW) for what it is. I love CS Source(SC2) for what it is.

On April 27 2010 13:50 ttsp wrote:
Someone at blizzard needs to give Lalush a job.

This guy understands balance better than anyone who works at Blizz.

On April 27 2010 14:09 hacpee wrote:
Not having precise control isn't that big of an issue from a player's perspective. He is given a set of tools to work with and his goal is to use the tools given to him to win the game. In the end, the player who harnesses what is presented to him better will win the game.

The issue I have is from a spectator's perspective. I was watching Nony's phenonix micro or attempt at phenonix micro. It was horrible. At one point in the game, he tried to attack and retreat 4 times and failed all 4. That is simply not fun to watch. If you cant control your units precisely, you are then reduced to autoattacking/casting spells/focus firing. Again, nothing wrong with that from a player's perspective, however it is not fun to watch.

On April 27 2010 14:02 iheartpurplez wrote:
i found the main article to be fantastic but i feel that this :





is really the biggest issue concerning micro at the moment, and that awesome example xenocide_kinght gave goes right for the jugular .

On April 27 2010 14:07 ymirheim wrote:

Really?

In SC2, Immortal/Stalker force with sentry support vs marine/marauder with ghost support comes down to how much you practiced your forcefield and kiting micro as well as unit spreading. Me vs White-rA, I probably would kill a few units and loose my entire force to excellent forcefields and good unitspread.

We can already establish that we cannot compare case for case exactly because the units are different but if people are really intent on comparing micro opportunity then we can always cancel out micro situations against each other, so in sc2 we got forcefields which make a HUGE difference depending on how you use them. Well placed forcefields can allow you to take out a larger force with a smaller force, the very definition of micro. So lets just take muta control and forcefields and remove those two from the discussion. Maybe we can go down the line and find that one of the two games have slightly more microable situations but by no means is it just as simple as saying one game has these scenarios and the other doesn't. Just because any numbnut can place sentries or kite with marauders does not mean that everyone can do it equally well, there is bad forcefield micro and there is bad marauder micro and people seem way to willing to just ignore this to further their argument.

On April 27 2010 14:00 LunarC wrote:

This. Is. Fundamental.
Yet not even the Starcraft 2 design team at Blizzard have familiarized themselves with Brood War.

On April 27 2010 14:16 legendin wrote:
1. A game with simple controls, clear functions, and easy micro will help sell more copies, expand the games popularity, and encourage new gamers.

2. A game with complex controls, nuanced functions, and hard micro will keep the game alive longer, expand replay-ability, and promote professional level gamers.

Bottom line: In a world that is inundated with video games and heavy competition, so much more than 10 years ago, any strategy game, or company for that matter, needs to have both to survive and a compromise must be struck.

At the core this is not an argument about micro or macro or SC1 vs. SC2. This is a class struggle between the professional gamers and the casual gamers. SC1 has been dominated by professional gamers for a long time and there hasn't been a casual gamer community around it for a while and now that SC2's popularity is on the rise for all different types of people there feels like a certain loss of control for professional SC players who believe their opinions matter more than anyone else. SC was a game that they could call their own and a their sense of identity is being threatened but that's not the case.

While professional gamers snub casual gamers and say their opinions don't matter and casual gamers rage at professional gamers for being snobby everyone is sort of missing the point. The truth is that both groups depend on each other. Casual gamers want to watch the big dogs play and the big dogs want to be watched and recognized for all their hard work in games. Professional athletes don't get paid the big bucks if the masses don't put out the money to watch them. No professional sport, digital or not, can survive without either group and I for one want to watch SC2 be a worldwide ESport sensation.

However, the only way that professional gaming can spread throughout the world is to have a large casual game base and a thriving professional scene. So, ultimately, don't try to make SC2 like SC1. We're trying to make it better than SC1, bigger than SC1, and the only way to do that is to strike a balance and that might mean letting go of SC1 and giving up some things from it.

Seriously, I would be surprised if anyone on the Blizzard design/balance team could get past C- on iCCup. Or if they can name the Pro-teams or the korean names of 5 progamers.

To all you saying "Oh stop criticizing blizzard, you try to make a game, lets see you do better"

Damn right we can do better. We can't make a videogame from scratch, we don't have the endless funds and power of Blizzard, but can we "do better"? I believe so, yes.

On April 27 2010 13:50 ttsp wrote:
Someone at blizzard needs to give Lalush a job.

This guy understands balance better than anyone who works at Blizz.

On April 27 2010 14:12 Half wrote:


SC2 is certainly new, its certainly different, were trying to make sure its just as exciting. Currently, it just...isn't.

On April 27 2010 14:16 legendin wrote:
1. A game with simple controls, clear functions, and easy micro will help sell more copies, expand the games popularity, and encourage new gamers.

2. A game with complex controls, nuanced functions, and hard micro will keep the game alive longer, expand replay-ability, and promote professional level gamers.

Bottom line: In a world that is inundated with video games and heavy competition, so much more than 10 years ago, any strategy game, or company for that matter, needs to have both to survive and a compromise must be struck.

At the core this is not an argument about micro or macro or SC1 vs. SC2. This is a class struggle between the professional gamers and the casual gamers. SC1 has been dominated by professional gamers for a long time and there hasn't been a casual gamer community around it for a while and now that SC2's popularity is on the rise for all different types of people there feels like a certain loss of control for professional SC players who believe their opinions matter more than anyone else. SC was a game that they could call their own and a their sense of identity is being threatened but that's not the case.

While professional gamers snub casual gamers and say their opinions don't matter and casual gamers rage at professional gamers for being snobby everyone is sort of missing the point. The truth is that both groups depend on each other. Casual gamers want to watch the big dogs play and the big dogs want to be watched and recognized for all their hard work in games. Professional athletes don't get paid the big bucks if the masses don't put out the money to watch them. No professional sport, digital or not, can survive without either group and I for one want to watch SC2 be a worldwide ESport sensation.

However, the only way that professional gaming can spread throughout the world is to have a large casual game base and a thriving professional scene. So, ultimately, don't try to make SC2 like SC1. We're trying to make it better than SC1, bigger than SC1, and the only way to do that is to strike a balance and that might mean letting go of SC1 and giving up some things from it.

On April 27 2010 14:11 Paperscraps wrote:


Seriously!

Why play SC2 if you are in love with SC1 so much. Oh wait you want something new, different, and exciting. SC2 is new, different, and exciting. Let it come into its own or just play BW. Seems like a simple answer to me.

P.S. I love CS 1.6(SC:BW) for what it is. I love CS Source(SC2) for what it is.

On April 27 2010 14:14 LunarC wrote:




....start watching at 16:00. Do it.
+ Show Spoiler +

As you can see, these are not micro "tricks" we are talking about. This is REAL micro. THIS is what we are talking about.

On April 27 2010 14:22 Paperscraps wrote:


This statement is completely subjective based. This is what plagues this entire thread, rational thinking vs emotional thinking.

On April 27 2010 14:25 ploy wrote:


I agree, I did not mean to sound condescending by calling them micro tricks - I should have just said micro. However, my point still stands. The quality of starcraft 1 games was TERRIBLE by today's standards for several years after its release. I don't see how it is reasonable to think that we should be seeing equally as impressive game play from players who have only played the beta for a couple months.