|
On April 27 2010 13:48 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 13:18 ZapRoffo wrote: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. Let me tell you exactly how the thought tree goes in sair vs Muta or Pheonix vs Muta SC2: Phoenix vs MutaI have 8 pheonix, he has 8 mutas. I can right click his muta and he has to run away I have 5 phoenix and he has 8 muta. If I right click his muta I die so i have to run away SCBW Muta vs SairI have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. If I rightclick his sair, I die so I run away I have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. I practiced my muta micro. If I use patrol shot, and split my mutas well, I can win the fight with minimal losses. The problem with SC2 is that there is no micro that will cause such a huge impact in an engagement. 10 marauders will always rape 8 roaches, I dont care how well either side micro. In BW, 11 Mutas vs 30 marines with medic and turret support comes down to how much you practiced your muta or marine micro. Me vs flash, I probably would kill 3 rines and lose all my mutas. Jaedong vs flash, they might split even. Jaedong vs me, I would lose all my marines and maybe kill a muta.
In a vacuum, yes, that's pretty much the decision tree, but in game conditions it's not. If you know your economy is stronger and the opponent is not in an aggressive position, inflicting losses is advantageous. If he is in an aggressive position, you want to hold out until you realize that benefit. If there are stalkers on the ground defending a base with the phoenixes, but a zerg army is meanwhile busting in the front, and void rays which were harassing are halfway between the zerg expansion and protoss base. These factors continually add challenge to the decision. If the muta controller chooses to engage, he has to consider that the stalkers might micro forward and get extra shots on the mutas, or they might be heading to engage the zerg army, or how the battle will be different if he waits for his army. In brood war, he has to consider "can I do enough damage to justify the hits the stalkers (well, goons) will get on me and am I a stronger force with micro than the corsairs if they pursue?" If that's true, there's no reason not to take potshots.
I'm not disagreeing that factors which depending on control can allow a statistically inferior force to beat a stronger one are good for a game, like the ending point of the post by NicolBolas on p. 19 I think, I'm just trying to point out that this notion of having "perfect control" of units (not having downtimes) does not necessarily make the game "harder" or "more skillful."
|
On April 27 2010 14:20 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
No, you couldn't. Make Warcraft 4. Give me an idea. I'll tell you five reasons why its shit.
ok so, we're going to take starcraft broodwar. We're going to keep the exact fucking game but change the skins. It's still going to be 2D sprites. We're going to add two new units to each race. We are going to hire people to write a creative and entertaining story line that follows the death of Arthas.
A stupid challenge only leads to a stupid answer
On April 27 2010 14:14 ploy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:02 iheartpurplez wrote:i found the main article to be fantastic but i feel that this : On April 27 2010 13:48 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Let me tell you exactly how the thought tree goes in sair vs Muta or Pheonix vs Muta
SC2: Phoenix vs Muta
I have 8 pheonix, he has 8 mutas. I can right click his muta and he has to run away
I have 5 phoenix and he has 8 muta. If I right click his muta I die so i have to run away
SCBW Muta vs Sair
I have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. If I rightclick his sair, I die so I run away
I have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. I practiced my muta micro. If I use patrol shot, and split my mutas well, I can win the fight with minimal losses.
The problem with SC2 is that there is no micro that will cause such a huge impact in an engagement. 10 marauders will always rape 8 roaches, I dont care how well either side micro.
In BW, 11 Mutas vs 30 marines with medic and turret support comes down to how much you practiced your muta or marine micro. Me vs flash, I probably would kill 3 rines and lose all my mutas. Jaedong vs flash, they might split even. Jaedong vs me, I would lose all my marines and maybe kill a muta. is really the biggest issue concerning micro at the moment, and that awesome example xenocide_kinght gave goes right for the jugular . And how many years after SC1 release did people learn those micro tricks? Maybe SC2 is incapable of these kinds of awesome micro battles, maybe it isn't. Regardless, it is way too early to tell and a lot of people here have absurd expectations for the quality of SC2 play, especially seeing as how it's not even released yet. Even when SC1 was done being balanced, the quality of play 6 years ago in BW is considered laughable to the quality of BW today. How is it possibly fair to be holding SC2 to such high expectations so early in its development?
On April 27 2010 14:25 ploy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:14 LunarC wrote:On April 27 2010 13:31 NicolBolas wrote:Broodwar was a fluke. The micro was due to the primitive game engine and coding. However, it was amazing. Why are we trying to erase these incredible flukes and attempting to discover new ones. Especially flukes that took 10 years to figure out. The fact that life evolved on Earth is sort of a cosmic fluke. This is a good question. Why erase these flukes? Because maybe they're not as incredible as you suspect. On April 27 2010 14:14 ploy wrote:On April 27 2010 14:02 iheartpurplez wrote:i found the main article to be fantastic but i feel that this : On April 27 2010 13:48 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Let me tell you exactly how the thought tree goes in sair vs Muta or Pheonix vs Muta
SC2: Phoenix vs Muta
I have 8 pheonix, he has 8 mutas. I can right click his muta and he has to run away
I have 5 phoenix and he has 8 muta. If I right click his muta I die so i have to run away
SCBW Muta vs Sair
I have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. If I rightclick his sair, I die so I run away
I have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. I practiced my muta micro. If I use patrol shot, and split my mutas well, I can win the fight with minimal losses.
The problem with SC2 is that there is no micro that will cause such a huge impact in an engagement. 10 marauders will always rape 8 roaches, I dont care how well either side micro.
In BW, 11 Mutas vs 30 marines with medic and turret support comes down to how much you practiced your muta or marine micro. Me vs flash, I probably would kill 3 rines and lose all my mutas. Jaedong vs flash, they might split even. Jaedong vs me, I would lose all my marines and maybe kill a muta. is really the biggest issue concerning micro at the moment, and that awesome example xenocide_kinght gave goes right for the jugular . And how many years after SC1 release did people learn those micro tricks? Maybe SC2 is incapable of these kinds of awesome micro battles, maybe it isn't. Regardless, it is way too early to tell and a lot of people here have absurd expectations for the quality of SC2 play, especially seeing as how it's not even released yet. Even when SC1 was done being balanced, the quality of play 6 years ago in BW is considered laughable to the quality of BW today. How is it possibly fair to be holding SC2 to such high expectations so early in its development? ....start watching at 16:00. Do it. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/games/9269_fOrGG_vs_Kal/vod As you can see, these are not micro "tricks" we are talking about. This is REAL micro. THIS is what we are talking about. 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.
We do not want to take a step backwards.
I passed the 1st grade. At the beginning of 2nd grade, I was held to the standard at the end of 1st grade. And at the beginning of 3rd grade I was held to the standard at the end of 2nd grade, which was FAR beyond the standard I was held to in 1st grade.
That's called progress. That's what I want. That's what I want everyone to want so that the quiality of games only goes up over time.
|
On April 27 2010 14:12 Half wrote:
See this is a problem thats been consistently reiterated throughout the thread, people try to dramatize there statements. You're absolutely right, micro is not dead. We have not in fact been playing Supreme Commander all this time and didn't know about it.
But its pretty unarguable that theirs less of it. There was barely a unit in SC1 that wasn't heavily micro intensive.
I think though that people are getting caught up on the gimmicky single unit micro mechanics like mutalisk stacking and vulture kiting which yeah sure they were fun and I will not take away anything on how hard it is to learn mutalisk control and to manage them well but to be honest beyond these gimmicks true micro lies in the subtle details. Like pathblocking units, rotating your units to keep the ones with low health out of range of the enemy, and constantly controlling the placement of your army to maintain superior positioning. One thing that starcraft 2 has is that the unit mixes are much more versatile and generally you have a deeper mix of units which should all ideally be hitting different stuff.
To go back to the TvP example you need to initially use your marauders to focus zealots at the front and then backwalk kite them to try and take them down while trying to take as little damage as possible from the protoss stalkers and immortals who are likely behind them, at the same time you need to make sure your marines are hitting the immortals and that the marauders go for stalkers once the zealots are down, you need to emp immortals and sentries and you constantly need to keep your army moving and being aware of forcefield placement.
I think TvP in sc2 is more micro heavy than it was in broodwar for example. It is almost ridiculous how fast you loose the entire game when the two armies clash if you are not 100% focused and pull everything off just right, just one screwup in micro and your entire army goes away in 2 seconds.
I am just not so sure that the impression that the units in sc2 are less micro intensive is true. The units in sc/bw don't need to be microed. They are not heavily micro intensive just by default they only become that if the opponent is using his units better and just from what I have seen playing a lot of widely different levels of players in sc2 beta so far, also factoring in the fact that the game is just still so young is that sc2 has just as much potential. Perhaps the micro will not lie in the gimmicky things but players will keep pushing each other to use their units more effectively as the game goes on.
|
On April 27 2010 14:25 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:22 Paperscraps wrote:On April 27 2010 14:12 Half wrote:On April 27 2010 14:11 Paperscraps wrote: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.... 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. SC2 is certainly new, its certainly different, were trying to make sure its just as exciting. Currently, it just...isn't. This statement is completely subjective based. This is what plagues this entire thread, rational thinking vs emotional thinking. No, I can objectively tell you why its less exciting, I stated this in my original post here. A player skill is less of a factor in tactical combat then it was in SC1 in this stage in the metagame. I believe that due to the way SC2 is constructed, we won't evolve to the level we saw in Sc1.
Contradiction in bold. None of us know that SC2 won't evolve into something awesome, because we can't see into the future.
|
Omg!
User was warned for this post.
|
Definitely agree, and like you said, the high damage compensation for the lack of micro makes armor useless.
|
On April 27 2010 14:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:25 ploy wrote:On April 27 2010 14:14 LunarC wrote:On April 27 2010 13:31 NicolBolas wrote:Broodwar was a fluke. The micro was due to the primitive game engine and coding. However, it was amazing. Why are we trying to erase these incredible flukes and attempting to discover new ones. Especially flukes that took 10 years to figure out. The fact that life evolved on Earth is sort of a cosmic fluke. This is a good question. Why erase these flukes? Because maybe they're not as incredible as you suspect. On April 27 2010 14:14 ploy wrote:On April 27 2010 14:02 iheartpurplez wrote:i found the main article to be fantastic but i feel that this : On April 27 2010 13:48 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Let me tell you exactly how the thought tree goes in sair vs Muta or Pheonix vs Muta
SC2: Phoenix vs Muta
I have 8 pheonix, he has 8 mutas. I can right click his muta and he has to run away
I have 5 phoenix and he has 8 muta. If I right click his muta I die so i have to run away
SCBW Muta vs Sair
I have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. If I rightclick his sair, I die so I run away
I have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. I practiced my muta micro. If I use patrol shot, and split my mutas well, I can win the fight with minimal losses.
The problem with SC2 is that there is no micro that will cause such a huge impact in an engagement. 10 marauders will always rape 8 roaches, I dont care how well either side micro.
In BW, 11 Mutas vs 30 marines with medic and turret support comes down to how much you practiced your muta or marine micro. Me vs flash, I probably would kill 3 rines and lose all my mutas. Jaedong vs flash, they might split even. Jaedong vs me, I would lose all my marines and maybe kill a muta. is really the biggest issue concerning micro at the moment, and that awesome example xenocide_kinght gave goes right for the jugular . And how many years after SC1 release did people learn those micro tricks? Maybe SC2 is incapable of these kinds of awesome micro battles, maybe it isn't. Regardless, it is way too early to tell and a lot of people here have absurd expectations for the quality of SC2 play, especially seeing as how it's not even released yet. Even when SC1 was done being balanced, the quality of play 6 years ago in BW is considered laughable to the quality of BW today. How is it possibly fair to be holding SC2 to such high expectations so early in its development? ....start watching at 16:00. Do it. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/games/9269_fOrGG_vs_Kal/vod As you can see, these are not micro "tricks" we are talking about. This is REAL micro. THIS is what we are talking about. 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. Haha. Whenever your side no longer has any merits, it relies on "this is beta, stfu". That kind of sheer skill is a direct result of the sheer multitude of ways each player is able to express his personal ability through in game action. This level of control is not allotted/rewarded in SC2. Also that video made me sadfaced 
Don't create a straw man argument. I'm not saying its allowed to be a bad game because its in beta. I'm simply saying it is unfair to compare starcraft so many years after its release to SC2 in a stage of infancy. I'm note even talking about graphic engines or units or anything - I'm talking about the players. The SC when boxer dominated is the same SC that is being played, yet the SC being played now is VASTLY higher quality than when boxer played.
|
ok so, we're going to take starcraft broodwar. We're going to keep the exact fucking game but change the skins. It's still going to be 2D sprites. We're going to add two new units to each race. We are going to hire people to write a creative and entertaining story line that follows the death of Arthas
I'm sure fucking glad they didn't hire you to make Warcraft 4 then :/.
You honestly think that that would be "good"? I guarantee you the public reaction on TLNET itself would be "cheap money grab", but most would buy it. The public reaction outside of TLnet would be "piece of shit", and nobody would buy it.
I mean, think about it. I disagree with blizz devs, but I do respect them. I mean, seriously, my point was that any Idea you come up with in relation to game design, when scrutinized by others, is usually problematic in a multitude of very obvious ways. When you create an idea that isn't immediately problematic in 5 different ways, its quite an achievement, and everything we aren't criticizing right now is pretty much a success on Dustins team. Nobody's whining about how Stalkers are problematic in five different ways, and that's a success on their behalf, something I doubt you could achieve with any degree of frequency, which they have, as apparently, the things we are currently complaining about is less then the total sum of new elements they added in SC2.
Don't create a straw man argument. I'm not saying its allowed to be a bad game because its in beta. I'm simply saying it is unfair to compare starcraft so many years after its release to SC2 in a stage of infancy. I'm note even talking about graphic engines or units or anything - I'm talking about the players. The SC when boxer dominated is the same SC that is being played, yet the SC being played now is VASTLY higher quality than when boxer played.
Ugh, I know, you're saying the metagame will evolve, blah blah blah, thats what I meant.
I'm saying the metagame's evolution will be stunted by the fact that player control imply matters less in SC2 as far as battle goes AS A WHOLE. Yes, their are still battles where player control is important, but objectively there are less units that scale extremely well with player skill.
Contradiction in bold. None of us know that SC2 won't evolve into something awesome, because we can't see into the future.
Meh. I actually wrote "Conclude" in my original post but I edited it out in risk of sounding pretentious. Now I just sound unsure I guess.
Conclude is better, or rather "The current evidence points towards". What I meant by objectively is objectively is that they're are less scenarios where player control will change the outcome of said scenario. Thus, player skill is given less expression, and the metagame will not scale as fully with player skill as it did in the original SC. That isn't a belief, its the logical conclusion of set evidence.
|
On April 27 2010 14:31 ymirheim wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:12 Half wrote:
See this is a problem thats been consistently reiterated throughout the thread, people try to dramatize there statements. You're absolutely right, micro is not dead. We have not in fact been playing Supreme Commander all this time and didn't know about it.
But its pretty unarguable that theirs less of it. There was barely a unit in SC1 that wasn't heavily micro intensive. I think though that people are getting caught up on the gimmicky single unit micro mechanics like mutalisk stacking and vulture kiting which yeah sure they were fun and I will not take away anything on how hard it is to learn mutalisk control and to manage them well but to be honest beyond these gimmicks true micro lies in the subtle details. I think TvP in sc2 is more micro heavy than it was in broodwar for example. It is almost ridiculous how fast you loose the entire game when the two armies clash if you are not 100% focused and pull everything off just right, just one screwup in micro and your entire army goes away in 2 seconds. I am just not so sure that the impression that the units in sc2 are less micro intensive is true. The units in sc/bw don't need to be microed.
OK... clearly you too are uneducated about broodwar. Thats ok, I just wish people would take more time to learn about broodwar before posting comments like this. I will edit a paragraph of yours for you, but in the future, please try to research more.
On April 27 2010 14:31 ymirheim wrote:
To go back to the TvP example you need to initially use your marauders to focus zealots at the front and then backwalk kite them to try and take them down while trying to take as little damage as possible from the protoss stalkers and immortals who are likely behind them, at the same time you need to make sure your marines are hitting the immortals and that the marauders go for stalkers once the zealots are down, you need to emp immortals and sentries and you constantly need to keep your army moving and being aware of forcefield placement.
To go back to the TvP example you need to initially use your vultures to focus zealots at the front and then backwalk kite them to try and take them down while trying to take as little damage as possible from the protoss dragoons and hightemplar who are likely behind them, at the same time you need to make sure your tanks are hitting the dragoons and that the vultures go for hightemplar once the zealots are down, you need to emp arbiters and hightemplar and you constantly need to keep your army moving and being aware of psionic storm.
Interestingly, anyone who understand broodwar will realize, on TOP of all this, you have to watch for arbiter stasis, mine drags, plant mine fields, focus reavers and dodge scarabs, build turrets, watch for zealot bombs, etc etc..
|
On April 27 2010 14:37 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
ok so, we're going to take starcraft broodwar. We're going to keep the exact fucking game but change the skins. It's still going to be 2D sprites. We're going to add two new units to each race. We are going to hire people to write a creative and entertaining story line that follows the death of Arthas
I'm sure fucking glad they didn't hire you to make Warcraft 4 then :/. You honestly think that that would be "good"? I guarantee you the public reaction on TLNET itself would be "cheap money grab", but most would buy it. The public reaction outside of TLnet would be "piece of shit", and nobody would buy it.
Really, how long have you been on TL? You really think if Blizzard released what is EXACTLY a new expansion to the original starcraft, TL would think it's shit?
Well, I guess not exactly, we would have to change the title and rewrite the story. But the gameplay would be the same. Infact, just screw the skin change, keep everything the same as broodwar but with two new units and new campaign.
I guarantee TL would love that shit. Any starcraft fan would love it. The pro scene would love it.
|
On April 27 2010 14:48 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:37 Half wrote:
ok so, we're going to take starcraft broodwar. We're going to keep the exact fucking game but change the skins. It's still going to be 2D sprites. We're going to add two new units to each race. We are going to hire people to write a creative and entertaining story line that follows the death of Arthas
I'm sure fucking glad they didn't hire you to make Warcraft 4 then :/. You honestly think that that would be "good"? I guarantee you the public reaction on TLNET itself would be "cheap money grab", but most would buy it. The public reaction outside of TLnet would be "piece of shit", and nobody would buy it. Really, how long have you been on TL? You really think if Blizzard released what is EXACTLY a new expansion to the original starcraft, TL would think it's shit? Well, I guess not exactly, we would have to change the title and rewrite the story. But the gameplay would be the same. Infact, just screw the skin change, keep everything the same as broodwar but with two new units and new campaign. I guarantee TL would love that shit. Any starcraft fan would love it. The pro scene would love it.
They wouldn't have made a new game though. I'm making a poll right now, lets see the results.
How many of you would seriously want blizzard to make a full fledged full price sequel in 2d with a new campaign and 2 new units.
Poll: Would you enjoy SC2 if it were an exact copy of SC1 with 2 new unitsNo (54) 50% Yes (53) 50% 107 total votes Your vote: Would you enjoy SC2 if it were an exact copy of SC1 with 2 new units (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
This is on TL.net ONLY. Not the gaming community in a large, which would be overwhelmingly negative and really ruin blizzards reputation as a game developer outside of this niche fanbase.
So if you can't get a overwhelming majority...here, are you expecting a better percentage on gamespot?
|
On April 27 2010 14:22 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:12 Half wrote:On April 27 2010 14:11 Paperscraps wrote: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.... 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. SC2 is certainly new, its certainly different, were trying to make sure its just as exciting. Currently, it just...isn't. This statement is completely subjective based. This is what plagues this entire thread, rational thinking vs emotional thinking.
Speaking of Playgus...
People in general believe that the Starcraft 2 engine/unit design whatever does not allow for as much difference in effectiveness as micro in Starcraft 2. There are a multitude of examples of micro from Starcraft 2 and a multitude of examples of micro from Starcraft 1. There is a clear difference. A CLEAR difference. We are trying to pinpoint the cause of this difference.
What does rational thinking have to offer us?
Let's think rationally.
Less of a micro dependency of units lowers the skill curve, because there doesn't need to be as deep of an understanding of how to maximize a unit's payoff through micro. This is good from a business standpoint, as more people will be willing to jump into the game. Also, Starcraft 2 already has a large name and following associated with it (WOW, Warcraft 3, Starcraft Brood War, ESports) and so will likely net those customers if Blizzard throws them a bone once in a while (macro mechanics, Battle Reports emphasizing "micro opportunities").
What needs to be done is to reel in the casual player by lowering the entry level skill curve without sacrificing too much of the higher end of the spectrum. Thus, MBS, Automine,
Or, Blizzard can kick that to the curb, be a (collective) man and emotionally make a kick-ass game AFTER EXTENSIVE PLAYING/WATCHING/RESEARCHING of the ORIGINAL game and use those elements and foundations to craft a game equal in complexity with a kick-ass learning curve and enormous spectating potential, taking the updated features like MBS, Automine, and Unlimited Unit Selection and introducing counter-balancing mechanics that directly deal with the core issues such features create, not mechanics that mess with the progression of economic growth. Mechanics such as:
1. Units that are designed with CONTROL in mind, meaning that the engine is tailored for rewarding the player with superior control (meaning less AI) and units that are designed to be drastically more effective with other units that function fundamentally differently, promoting the use multiple control groups, even while the option to use a single hotkey is there, to maximize micro. (Addresses Unlimited Unit Selection issue).
2. Removal of Macro Mechanics that utterly destroy the linear progression of economic growth. Instead, have Auto-mine and Smart-casting be a feature present up to Silver League, and absent up to Platinum League.
In fact, the presence of new features in Starcraft 2 like MBS, Auto-mine, and Smart-casting should be based on the league the game is taking place in and should be an option for custom maps. Blizzard can even design new sets of "challenges" to teach players how to move away from dependence on such features. Yes, it's a radical idea and I'm likely alone in advocating such an approach, but given the original intent of these mechanics (making it easier for casuals), I don't see any reason why such a mechanic should not be implemented.
Anyway, my main point is that we can either be very rational about this, or Blizzard can kick that to the curb, be a (collective) man and emotionally make a kick-ass game AFTER EXTENSIVE PLAYING/WATCHING/RESEARCHING of the ORIGINAL game and use those elements and foundations to craft a game equal in complexity with a kick-ass learning curve and enormous spectating potential.
|
On April 27 2010 14:37 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
ok so, we're going to take starcraft broodwar. We're going to keep the exact fucking game but change the skins. It's still going to be 2D sprites. We're going to add two new units to each race. We are going to hire people to write a creative and entertaining story line that follows the death of Arthas
I'm sure fucking glad they didn't hire you to make Warcraft 4 then :/. You honestly think that that would be "good"? I guarantee you the public reaction on TLNET itself would be "cheap money grab" Show nested quote +
Don't create a straw man argument. I'm not saying its allowed to be a bad game because its in beta. I'm simply saying it is unfair to compare starcraft so many years after its release to SC2 in a stage of infancy. I'm note even talking about graphic engines or units or anything - I'm talking about the players. The SC when boxer dominated is the same SC that is being played, yet the SC being played now is VASTLY higher quality than when boxer played.
Ugh, I know, you're saying the metagame will evolve, blah blah blah, thats what I meant. I'm saying the metagame's evolution will be stunted by the fact that player control imply matters less in SC2 as far as battle goes AS A WHOLE. Yes, their are still battles where player control is important, but objectively there are less units that scale extremely well with player skill.
I question the extent that we KNOW the units in SC2 will not be able to scale well with player skill. After all, muta micro wasn't really discovered/executed until how long after release? I know that based on what the OP discussed it is unlikely that the same kind of unique micro that SC one had in SC2, but we still can't be so certain that new micro won't be discovered as top players explore the options within the game. You could possibly still call this 'metagame', but the kind of micro that is common in SC today was not even fathomed when the game was young.
|
On April 27 2010 13:48 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
Let me tell you exactly how the thought tree goes in sair vs Muta or Pheonix vs Muta
SC2: Phoenix vs Muta
I have 8 pheonix, he has 8 mutas. I can right click his muta and he has to run away
I have 5 phoenix and he has 8 muta. If I right click his muta I die so i have to run away
SCBW Muta vs Sair
I have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. If I rightclick his sair, I die so I run away
I have 9 Mutas, he has 5 sairs. I practiced my muta micro. If I use patrol shot, and split my mutas well, I can win the fight with minimal losses.
The problem with SC2 is that there is no micro that will cause such a huge impact in an engagement. 10 marauders will always rape 8 roaches, I dont care how well either side micro.
In BW, 11 Mutas vs 30 marines with medic and turret support comes down to how much you practiced your muta or marine micro. Me vs flash, I probably would kill 3 rines and lose all my mutas. Jaedong vs flash, they might split even. Jaedong vs me, I would lose all my marines and maybe kill a muta.
let me fix that for you:
SC2: Phoenix vs Muta
I have 8 pheonix, he has 8 mutas. I can right click his muta and he has to run away
I have 5 phoenix and he has 8 muta. I practiced my phoenix micro. If I split my phoenix well and and use my move speed advantage, I can win the fight with minimal losses.
all these "critical micro situations" just have not evolved yet, because the strategies are not refined enough to regularly lead to such "critical fights".
even the top players just don't know the game well enough yet and take battles in bad spotts and just totally botch their army positioning and lose with a superior force because they had a bad firing arc or got caught in a bad situation.
you're basically saying that in sc2 the superior force always wins the battle. but that is just complete BS. every race has the units and spells in place to win against a superior opposing force...
|
On April 27 2010 14:51 ploy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:37 Half wrote:
ok so, we're going to take starcraft broodwar. We're going to keep the exact fucking game but change the skins. It's still going to be 2D sprites. We're going to add two new units to each race. We are going to hire people to write a creative and entertaining story line that follows the death of Arthas
I'm sure fucking glad they didn't hire you to make Warcraft 4 then :/. You honestly think that that would be "good"? I guarantee you the public reaction on TLNET itself would be "cheap money grab"
Don't create a straw man argument. I'm not saying its allowed to be a bad game because its in beta. I'm simply saying it is unfair to compare starcraft so many years after its release to SC2 in a stage of infancy. I'm note even talking about graphic engines or units or anything - I'm talking about the players. The SC when boxer dominated is the same SC that is being played, yet the SC being played now is VASTLY higher quality than when boxer played.
Ugh, I know, you're saying the metagame will evolve, blah blah blah, thats what I meant. I'm saying the metagame's evolution will be stunted by the fact that player control imply matters less in SC2 as far as battle goes AS A WHOLE. Yes, their are still battles where player control is important, but objectively there are less units that scale extremely well with player skill. I question the extent that we KNOW the units in SC2 will not be able to scale well with player skill. After all, muta micro wasn't really discovered/executed until how long after release? I know that based on what the OP discussed it is unlikely that the same kind of unique micro that SC one had in SC2, but we still can't be so certain that new micro won't be discovered as top players explore the options within the game. You could possibly still call this 'metagame', but the kind of micro that is common in SC today was not even fathomed when the game was young.
It isn't about specifics. We see specific micro being used, like stalker blink micro, but it isn't inertly complex. The amount of control a player exerts on his units simply doesn't match the amount of control exerted on BW units, and thus, we can conclude that less personal skill is entering the equation. Thats a logical statement.
The amount of micro used in say, Stalker micro, doesn't come close to say, the micro witnessed in that last video. So similarly, no matter what gimmicks are discovered, your not going to see the same amount of exciting gameplay because theres simply less room to exert your skill.
Also I'm going to prematurely congratulate xenocide for creating a game which only 55%, or half of the games most hardcore fans enjoy. I think blizzard got a better number tho. Don't think a 55% approval rating is good, especially when its amongst the most hardcore fans who would support this idea, let alone the like 1% you're going to see in mainstream.
Fantastic game design.
|
While it's true no one knows what shape competative Starcraft 2 will have in 8 years, it would still be cool to not have it be totally up in the air like it is now. Blizzard should be keeping the strengths of SC broodwar and stacking innovation on top of that solid infrastructure that's held SC up successfully for so many years. Moving shot was an iconic technique, and even though new techniques in SC2 may still be discovered, I don't see this gliding shot being the way to go for e-sports. I hope Blizzard isn't too far in to change things like this. I agree this is a new game, but some key things that led to success with SC1 should be kept in. Even subtle techniques like this which Blizzard may have overlooked fit into that catagory.
|
Very nice write up sir. Agree with most of your point.
Someone at Blizzard should show Dustin Browder this article
|
Well I totally agree with that. The thing that bother a lot is that if the opponent as more units than you, engaging a fight would be pointless because you can't really change the issue by microing, while it was all the point in sc1. Adding the fact that macro is easy, the game rely only on build order and decision making, which is kind of poor.
The cpu is doing half of the job. The end result will be a poor game that only could make it 5 years by adding expansions.
|
I hope Browder reads this.
Moving shot, please come back.
|
hell yeah, great write up. I completely agree
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
